Global Warming

[Dragonlord]

CarlosMM and storealex said it for me: nobody (at least not me) is saying let's freak out - by all means go on with your life, you think I don't? Just try to help where you can, when it doesn't drastically impact your lifestyle.

What really hurts are the efforts to deny that anything at all should be done!

 

[thestonesfan]

Please stop portraiting all people who are concerned about global warming as people who are saying:
"Global warming will kill us allllllllll!!!!!"

You don't see me calling all Bush-voters for gunslinging, flagwaving fundamentalists either.

And why not talk about global warming, if we truly believe there's a problem? Would you suggest we just ignore the problems away?

By all means, talk about it!

I don't pollute, and I'd love a more fuel efficient car. And I am a no-litter nazi. I hate people who litter.

 

[warpstorm]

you get skin cancer

Why would global warming cause skin cancer? Unless I'm mistaken that is buzz word for the unrelated environmental cause of ozone depletion.

 

[thestonesfan]

Global warming causes everything.

Man's reckless pollution caused the tsunamis.

 

[BasketCase]

And to the plant question: you missed my point, even though you quoted it yourself... I repeat: The level of free CO2 is demonstrably rising, so obviously we have exceeded the rate in which plants (even oceanic plankton) can absorb the excess. QED

Fill a 10-gallon bucket half-full with water. 5 gallons in the bucket. You've got two pumps: one pumping water into the bucket at 1 gallon a minute, and another pumping water out at a gallon a minute. Water is flowing in at the same rate it's flowing out. Excess water: 5 gallons.

Try it with the filled with 7 gallons of water instead of 5. Water flows in at 1 gallon a minute, and out at 1 gallon a minute.

Add a second pump to either bucket, and the buckets will both fill up at the same rate: 1 gallon per minute.

The amount of excess CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't mean anything. QED disproved.

Currently, the Earth's atmosphere contains about 370 parts per million of CO2, and CO2 is going into the atmosphere faster than it's departing. If it was 100 ppm of CO2 instead of 370, then CO2 would still be going into the atmosphere at the same rate--until plant biomass started to wither for lack of CO2, of course.

It is a basic law of nature: food surplus leads to population growth. Excess CO2 leads to more plant growth.

 

[BasketCase]

well, enough of straw for me, it is YOU who uses strawmen all the time

No, it's you.

Edit: Adding the following via edit in order to avoid the Evil 3 Posts In a Row deal.

Below is a chart of CO2 vs. temperature at higher resolution, and with scribbled notes added by yours truly. Notes in green indicate parts of the graph that support the theory (by the "greenies") that CO2 is causing global warming. Orange notes indicate sections that support the theory that CO2 is NOT causing global warming.

Please note: the present day is on the LEFT side of the chart--when I first found this I spent the first few minutes reading it backwards....

The chart has a few sections where temp and CO2 track almost exactly; others where temp follows CO2, as the global warming advocates contend; two section where CO2 follows temperature instead; and several regions where there is no correlation at all, with lots of anomalous peaks and dips which do not have corresponding peaks/dips in the other graph. Including the section marked "offset" in which the two plot lines dance in tandem except with the temp line running above the CO2 line and with CO2 sometimes peaking before temperature and sometimes peaking after temperature.

Sometimes CO2 and temperature dance in tandem. Sometimes one follows the other. The pattern is very dicey.

There are four possibilities:

#1: CO2 controls temperature.

#2: Temperature controls CO2.

#3: Both temperature and CO2 are controlled by something else.

#4: Temperature and CO2 are unrelated and independent; the correlations are simple coincidence.

#4 isn't very likely, but must still be considered; a certain level of CO2 and temperature is required for life to survive on this planet, so these two values are necessarily going to remain within a certain range, making coincidental correlations more likely. How likely? No idea. I personally consider #3 to be the most likely possibility.

Everybody points to CO2 as The Greenhouse Gas. Well, then, why all the blips on the chart??? Where's the data that gives you the conclusion that CO2 is what bakes the planet? "Oh, those are caused by other factors". Well, point to those factors. If something is corrupting your data, you must be able to ascertain WHAT is corrupting the data, and how--or else the data isn't reliable for drawing a conclusion.

Hence, the only conclusion I've bothered to draw in any of the global warming threads is that we don't have enough info about what the bleeding heck the planet is up to. We CAN'T draw a conclusion.

 

[Dragonlord]

The amount of excess CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't mean anything. QED disproved.

The amount (static) as such doesn't mean anything, agreed, but the rate of change (dynamic) does.

To use your analogy, if you have a bucket, don't know exactly how much water is going in and how much is going out, but see that the water level is rising, you can be absolutely certain that more is going in than is goiing out.

Since the CO2 levels are rising, it's absolutely certain that more is being released into the atmosphere than plants are absorbing. QED not disproved.

Edit: you said it yourself: CO2 is going faster into the atmosphere than it is departing!

 

[BasketCase]

And the more it does, the faster plants are gonna turn up the suction pump that removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Consumption rate WILL catch up to production rate. QED disproved.

Btw, scroll up and catch my edited message with the new chart. I'm wondering if I just should have done 3-in-a-row and posted the chart as a new message.

 

[Dragonlord]

And the more it does, the faster plants are gonna turn up the suction pump that removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Consumption rate WILL catch up to production rate. QED disproved.

Btw, scroll up and catch my edited message with the new chart. I'm wondering if I just should have done 3-in-a-row and posted the chart as a new message.

Hadn't seen the chart yet - interesting! I agree that it poses interesting questions and shows we don't know all there is to know about correllations between CO2 and warming. I just disagree with your conclusions.

I don't pretend to have the ultimate solutions and I certainly agree that there are many other factors factoring into global warming - I'm too lazy to writa a long essay here, let's just use some shorthand: snowball effects, dimming, ocean currents etc. etc. .
I've never pretended that CO2 is the ONLY factor in global warming, but it's definitely ONE important factor.

My conclusion, as already stated, is that it is better to err on the side of caution and try to reduce emissions than to wait for conclusive proof, at which point it may very well be too late.

BTW, about the plants again: it would be comforting indeed to believe plants will automatically take up the excess CO2 - but:
1. it's obvious that they haven't been able to do that in recent times, because the CO2 levels have been rising (see your own graph)
2. plant cover on land can't easily expand in todays world with increasing land expanses used for other purposes by mankind
3. oceanic absorption by plankton is related to water temperature - warmer water holds less biomass than colder water, so it's possible that a snowball effect could occur with ever more CO2 released from the oceans
4. as CarlosMM (I think) already stated, CO2 is not the only limiting factor for plant growth

 

[Pikachu]

Sometimes CO2 and temperature dance in tandem. Sometimes one follows the other. The pattern is very dicey.

There are four possibilities:

#1: CO2 controls temperature.

#2: Temperature controls CO2.

#3: Both temperature and CO2 are controlled by something else.

#4: Temperature and CO2 are unrelated and independent; the correlations are simple coincidence.

Or it could be possible that the global temperature is controlled by more than one single factor?

What about #5: CO2 and a bunch of other factors control temperature. To some degree temperature also control CO2 as rapid climate changes tend to kill lots of living things which release huge amounts of CO2.

Everybody points to CO2 as The Greenhouse Gas. Well, then, why all the blips on the chart??? Where's the data that gives you the conclusion that CO2 is what bakes the planet? "Oh, those are caused by other factors". Well, point to those factors. If something is corrupting your data, you must be able to ascertain WHAT is corrupting the data, and how

#1: Sun activity. There isn’t much we can do about it, but the sun has a major impact on the climate on earth.

#2: Earths albedo: I don’t know much about this, but it has something to do with how much energy the earth absorbs. Apparently ice has a huge impact on this, and when the energy balance is disturbed, changes in the icecaps will amplify the effect. Didn’t col explain that in this thread?

#3: Aerosols. Human activity produces a lot of aerosols like soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants. Such tiny particles reflect incoming sun rays and cools down the earth. This effect has reduced the incoming sunlight globally by about 1-2% every decade since 1950 according to an article col posted in this thread. Didn’t you read that article?

#4: Other green house gasses. CO2 is not the only green house gas. To track the total green house effect you must track the weighted sum of all the green house gasses.

#5: Other factors that I don’t know about.

Hence, the only conclusion I've bothered to draw in any of the global warming threads is that we don't have enough info about what the bleeding heck the planet is up to. We CAN'T draw a conclusion.

You are right that we don’t have enough info to know how our planet will respond to the changes we are introducing, but we have plenty of evidence to know for sure that we are rapidly changing a factor that evidently have a huge impact on the global climate. To me it seems incredibly ignorant to deny that this could change our climate.

 

[Shaihulud]

It was meant sarcastically because some of the reasons put out was that human was not the major factor for the increase. I know that afew degrees change is bad, it is bad already right now. Also more plants to soak up the excess CO2 might not be so good as it might produce algal bloom that kills sea life on the coastal shore. It might not affect the cooler parts of the world but it does affect the warmer parts.

 

[Dragonlord]

Hence, the only conclusion I've bothered to draw in any of the global warming threads is that we don't have enough info about what the bleeding heck the planet is up to. We CAN'T draw a conclusion.

No offense, but that's the problem I have with your posts: you're saying because we don't know for sure, let's do nothing.
I say: we have strong indicators that we are accelerating or at least contributing to global warming, and this MAY have catastrophic consequences. So let's try and do something about it.

And don't start about the plants again. I seriously doubt that you yourself believe we'll be starting a global famine by reducing CO2 emissions....

 

[warpstorm]

you're saying because we don't know for sure, let's do nothing.
I say: we have strong indicators that we are accelerating or at least contributing to global warming, and this MAY have catastrophic consequences. So let's try and do something about it.

So you are saying that doing the wrong thing because we don't understand the problem (or even if there is a problem) is better than doing nothing.

 

[storealex]

Global warming causes everything.

Man's reckless pollution caused the tsunamis.

That's it! From now on, I'll depict all Americans as fat, nationalistic, Christian fundamentalists, gun-lovers, gay-haters, arrogant, stupid, brutes, egoistic and as warmongers.

Or maybe I shall not. Because I know that's not the case. Far from it.

Why cant you do the same, and accept that the great majority of people concerned about the environtment, are far from the doomsday preachers that are so popular to bash?

Why?

 

[Dragonlord]

So you are saying that doing the wrong thing because we don't understand the problem (or even if there is a problem) is better than doing nothing.

Not at all! I just don't see any way how reducing CO2 emissions could realistically be harmful - while I see a very strong probability that it would be helpful.
How can it be 'the wrong thing'?

There can be no possible doubt that CO2 emissions by humanity are rising. If we reduce them, we are at most going back to a condition we have experienced before.
If we don't reduce them, CO2 levels will continue to rise and we will experience 'uncharted waters', that is, CO2 levels and (probably) global temperatures we have not experienced before.

Your argument to do nothing because of missing knowledge would actually fit better on the other side of the argument:
We know what happens at historical and current CO2 levels.
We don't know what will happen if CO2 levels continue to rise.

NOT reducing emissions is like a kid playing with fire: let's see what happens if I do this... OOPS! Burned myself...
Except that, if we find out the hard way that catastrophic climatic changes result from global warming, and that we caused (or contributed to) that warming, we can't just put our burned finger in cold water and say: OK, now I know what happens.
One thing is very certain: to reduce emissions is not something that can happen in a day - it takes time! And even if we stopped emitting today, temperatures would continue to rise for quite a while.

So, for me, it's better to start now than wait for 'proof' - because that proof is likely to be of a catastrophic nature.

 

[betazed]

Wrong. CONCLUSIVE information that Saddam was a dictator who was killing a whole lot of people led me to support action--i.e. war.

LACK of information on global warming leads me to do nothing.

Conclusive info = action. Lack of info = no action. No dissonance.

Eh, I missed your replies earlier. Hence this late reply. But what can I reply to you? You have already made up your mind. Well, when nothing to say quote from the best

"The heart of man is made to reconcile the most glaring contradictions." - Hume.

As for the rest of your post I see that you are in the good hands of Carlosmm.

 

[BasketCase]

And, finally, before even reading any of the responses to my posts yesterday, here's the capper: the Number One reason I'm suspicious of the whole global warming theory.

Random Web Site About Global Warming And Ice Ages

Check the section of the above web site that describes how global warming could trigger an ice age. Also note the following snippet:

and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

So what we're now dealing with is a problem that can't be disproved. Planet getting hotter? Global warming. Planet getting colder? Global warming triggering an Ice Age. More storms? Global warming disrupting weather patterns. Fewer storms (i.e. droughts)? Global warming. The Global Warming people have now said that warming could produce droughts, and COOLING could also produce droughts!

It's like arguing with a religious zealot--you can't prove God doesn't exist. Any theory that covers the bases so widely that all possible outcomes could be attributed to it, is not based on science.

Edit : "The heart of man is made to reconcile the most glaring contradictions." - Hume.
What contradiction? I don't know whether Saddam had WMD. I wanted Saddam kicked out of office because he was a dictator, not because of his (alleged) WMD programs. I don't know whether global warming is really happening, hence my do-nothing-until-we-know-what-we're-doing attitude. I fail to see a problem here.

 

[storealex]

I don't know whether global warming is really happening

Yes you do. What you don't know is if the warming is caused by humans, and if so, how much of it is. But everybody who looks at global temprature curves will see that global warming is happening.

hence my do-nothing-until-we-know-what-we're-doing attitude. I fail to see a problem here.

No matter how true human caused global warming is then, it will be impossible to prove that it's human caused. There will always be excuses for those who wish to believe otherwise. It can never be proved 100% by the technology we have, and is likely to have in the forseeable future. But then again, what can? I've said it before, but you seem to ignore it everytime:

It's a gamble, and acording to the majority AND the most recognised scientists, the odds are against you, Basketcase

Still you wanna take this bet, because you cannot be one hundred percent sure that you'll lose. That isn't logical.

As for the rest of your post, it only reveals a lack of scientific knowledge beyond the "A bucket with water" level. The ocean currents are influenced global temprature, as well as ice is. Ice melts and turns to cold water. Cold water is thus added to the ocean currents, while the global temprature already changing. Of course this will effect the ocean currents.
While the site you've pointed out might be biased, that is only a stupid reason to discard all theories about global warming. If you choose to see us all in a bad light, because the actions of a few "bad appels", then you're no better than... guess who...

I can easily find stupid and biased articles that says global warming is not going on (Wait, you've already found some for us your self)
By your logic, I can you those to discard everything you say.

"Some stupid people thinks the same as you. Ergo you are also wrong"

 

[newfangle]

Yes you do. What you don't know is if the warming is caused by humans, and if so, how much of it is. But everybody who looks at global temprature curves will see that global warming is happening.

"Everybody"? I don't think so.

 

[storealex]

"Everybody"? I don't think so.

Then you didn't look at the tempraturecurves. They clearly show that the global temprature is going up.