Little Bang Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 The last time the Earth regurgitated as much CO2 as we are putting into the atmosphere it destroyed about 90% of all life and yet this single piece of information does not concern those who think humans can't change the climate even though there are now over 7 billion of us. And, the number of people using fossil fuels is increasing at a rate much faster than most thought possible. Sleep well naysayers.
Galapagos Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Here is an interesting resource: Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist A guide on "How to talk to climate skeptics". It's like those list of creationist claims/arguments, except it is about climate change, and the answers linked are on blogs. This makes it interesting, because the claims are then disputed and defended in the comments sections of the blog entries. It is very extensive and I found it to be very helpful, so I thought I would share.
Moontanman Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 The last time the Earth regurgitated as much CO2 as we are putting into the atmosphere it destroyed about 90% of all life and yet this single piece of information does not concern those who think humans can't change the climate even though there are now over 7 billion of us. And, the number of people using fossil fuels is increasing at a rate much faster than most thought possible. Sleep well naysayers. LB do you have anything to back up that statement? If you are talking about the Permian extinction the last time I read about it methane was the gas released not co2. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas compared to CO2. We are no doubt speeding up the warming of the Earth but the Earth is usually warmer than is now. I do agree we are having a positive effect on the build up of CO2 but the Earths natural set point is higher than the temps are now. I don't think we can do much more than delay the rise in temps. I think we should try but the temps will rise in spite of anything we might do. the key is allow the Earth to do what ever it is going to naturally. We don't need to help it out any because we don't know what the consequences will be.
InfiniteNow Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 We are no doubt speeding up the warming of the Earth but the Earth is usually warmer than is now. Can you clarify something, moontanman? If you concede that humans are warming the planet, then how can you suggest that the temperature would be warmer right now naturally? Basically, we are ABOVE natural temperatures as a result of the actions of humans, so clearly what is "natural" would be cooler than it is at present. I'm just struggling to understand the point you are making, I guess, and any clarification would be welcomed. :hihi:
Eclipse Now Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 AGW: We KNOW what Co2 does. The physics of Co2 are standard and easily verifiable. Lots of scientists study absorption spectra of various molecules. This seems to be an argument against Global Warming based on a short term blip rather than the physics of global warming. As some online contacts put it: All you really need is a prism (usually a diffraction grating is used because it diffracts evenly). Just pass sunlight (blackbody radiation) through the prism, than pass it through the gas and see which portions of the spectrum get dimmer. The dimmer a portion gets, the stronger the absorption of that gas on that part of the spectrum. Because cool things like the earth emit longer wavelengths, and hot things like the sun emit higher wavelengths, things that absorb at lower (infrared) wavelengths act as radiative insulation from the earth but not from the sun. And... Many spectrometers and spectrophotometers use gratings, but that's the same basic idea. And you can also use tunable lasers, and calibrate everything with respect to known standards. The energy transfer part of GW study is pretty much standard thermodynamics. In other words, we know what Co2 does. We know that methane does it even better. And we know that Nitrous Oxide does it 300 times better than Co2! How? Basic, repeatable, demonstrable science. But how does it interact with the climate? Well, it's not just simple maths of adding the % of Co2 and that will give an accurate prediction of temperature for that year... because there are multiple forcings. A good enough volcanic explosion will create Global Dimming. If China has dirtier than average coal plants, that too could 'mask' Global Warming by Global Dimming. Sometimes there are climate 'magic gates' where climate change seems to 'pause' as various feedback loops and temperature absorbing mechanisms sort themselves out... and then BOOM it continues. Thermal inertia with the oceans and other mechanisms can appear to "pause" the progress of climate change. It all fits. Remember the the Great Global Warming Swindle 'documentary' that revealed the terrible Achilles heal to Global Warming — the fact that after WW2 Co2 went UP while global temperatures most definitely went DOWN? Oh no! Why didn't someone tell us this... the whole theory is WRONG! Sorry. It's not wrong... it's just complex. Because immediately after WW2 there was such an explosion of industrialization and coal mining that Co2 went up, but it was 'dirty coal' high in sulfur. The clean air acts that mandated sulfur scrubbers on coal stacks were only introduced in the 1970's to deal with acid rain. And what does sulfur do? Global Dimming. Sulfur in the air is a major DOWNWARD climate forcing. So we solved the acid rain, only to discover it had been masking the Global Warming. So basically an argument just from temperature trends in the environment alone does not prove or disprove Global Warming. 2007 into 2008 is a La Nina year. The Southern Oscillation Index (the oceans switching between El Nino and La Nina) is another major forcing... and Australia's had some blessed rain! Hooray... Global Warming is wrong again! No. Global Warming is COMPLEX again. Correct.
Little Bang Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Moon. the Permian extinction was started by the release of CO2 from volcanism. After a 5 degree C rise in temp than methane was released from the ocean. BTW methane is relatively short lived in the atmosphere. Sunlight makes it react with oxygen to form water and CO2.
Grains Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Here is an interesting resource: Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist A guide on "How to talk to climate skeptics". It's like those list of creationist claims/arguments, except it is about climate change, and the answers linked are on blogs. This makes it interesting, because the claims are then disputed and defended in the comments sections of the blog entries. It is very extensive and I found it to be very helpful, so I thought I would share. I enjoyed your article and as of right now I am forming a group called AntiGristmill: "How to talk to climate emotionalist". :phones: I like this one study since it has been a hot topic for me on this particular thread. 'Global warming stopped in 1998' | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist First they go into the objection that from 1998 temps have been declining. Before we get into this I would like to send out a little smile to all the people who denied that my graph was moving down from 1998 - 2008. Next, they refute this comment by not actually accepting that the graph is actually in a downtrend yet by saying we should go with a larger pool of data. I look at this as being absolutely fair as I would want a larger pool of data but at least admit its declining from 1998-2008 which they do but in not so many words and like here it took pulling teeth. Now, we all agree that larger pools of data and even the Global Warming bible Gristmill acknowledges this. The problem is they forgot about this graph that I have attached. If you want more data then here it is. On a conclusion I would like to add, although I find Gristmill's bible interesting and has many arguments presented with in it it faces a major problem. The fact that they are putting arguments in the way they would like to hear them and then refuting it from there. Wouldn't that be great if we could form a website that we could explain the problem with the theory that we present, yet we were the ones creating the very theory we were refuting!!!! Which leads me to why I lift my "glass" (Don't have on right now) and cheers hypography. Heer heer
InfiniteNow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 So much for you going through and reading this thread. :phones: Your silly objections have been addressed repeatedly, and in multiple ways.
Moontanman Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Can you clarify something, moontanman? If you concede that humans are warming the planet, then how can you suggest that the temperature would be warmer right now naturally? Basically, we are ABOVE natural temperatures as a result of the actions of humans, so clearly what is "natural" would be cooler than it is at present. I'm just struggling to understand the point you are making, I guess, and any clarification would be welcomed. :phones: No problem, Yes humans are contributing to the warming of the earth, human CO2 emissions are speeding up the process. But even if we could stop all CO2 emissions the Earth would continue to warm up, slower, but warmer none the less. In the last half a billion years or so there is much reason to think the earth has spent more time with out ice caps than with ice caps. We really don't know for sure what drives these temperature fluctuations but the reality is that the Earth's so called set point is higher than it is now. LB, I agree that methane is released due to a rising temperature. That in it's self is enough for me to support lessening of our CO2 emissions but I have no doubt that we cannot postpone forever the rise that will release the methane cathrates under the sea and in permafrost. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the cycles of cold allow methane to be deposited that would not be in a warmer ocean and the rise back releases this methane in a regular cycle. The Earth is NOT A STABLE environment, never has been, never will be. All we can do is try to minimize our foot print and hope we can cling to our civilization as the Earth changes. This idea of a non stable Earth is one reason I support space colonies but that is another thread. Suffice it to say we are at the mercy of the Earth not the other way around. I've tried to say this several times but I don't seem to be getting my idea across very well. We are not in control, we have a small influence that manifests it's self in the illusion of control but it is an illusion.
InfiniteNow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 The Earth is NOT A STABLE environment, never has been, never will be. Right, but noboby has ever claimed that it was. Also, would you please provide a cite that shows that the climate of the earth would, in fact, at this moment in history, be trending upward even in the absence of anthropogenic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere? IIRC, we should be experiencing a cooling right now, which is why I've challenged your comment above.
Moontanman Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Right, but noboby has ever claimed that it was. Also, would you please provide a cite that shows that the climate of the earth would, in fact, at this moment in history, be trending upward even in the absence of anthropogenic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere? IIRC, we should be experiencing a cooling right now, which is why I've challenged your comment above. Infi I cannot pretend to say absolutely we would be in a warming trend right now if indeed humans weren't releasing CO2. It is probable seeing how periods of cool are shorter than periods of warm and this period of cool has been around for a long time. The end of the last ice age marks the start of a warming trend that continues today. 10 to 20 thousand years ago I don't think humans were doing anything that would be seen as contributing to global warming, if we were then we are doomed because we will never be able to go back to that point. If teh current warming trend is due to humanity and not a natural warming then we are almost certinly preventing another ice age, I think this is improbable. If you compare periods of cool with periods of warm we should indeed be getting warmer very soon if not already but it is a gradual process and not well understood. Volcanism and biology would seem to be the controlling factors in this warm cool cycle and we really don't know how much of each is needed to turn a trend around. I just think it's wrong to say that humanity is some how in control of the earths climate. We are a factor but ultimately we will not be the deciding factor. If indeed the Earth is in an upward trend then it becomes even more important that we cut any contribution we are making. The earth is quite capable of becoming much hotter then it is now with out our help.
Eclipse Now Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 Tim Flannery in his book "The Weather Makers" argues that early human agriculture may have stabilised the climate. Prior to the holocene it was bouncing into and out of ice age quite regularly. Early agriculture may have created significant methane bogs releasing methane into the atmosphere at small but significant doses over long periods of time. As for the long term picture over 10's of millions of years, my very brief understanding of these matters is that continental drift itself can affect climate. But that's a looooong term effect. What we are discussing is preventing the earth hitting a climate tipping point where natural warming processes and feedbacks take over and suddenly it's too late. Anyway, I think civilisation will make it, it's only the degrees of economic pain and suffering, and the unfair plight of the poor that really bugs me. The 3rd world will be the ones that suffer the most. We might lose certain measures of economic prosperity and that will feel like the end of the world to some, but to the 3rd world not being able to grow their crops... it really IS the end of their world.
InfiniteNow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 As I mentioned, we should actually be much cooler right now, which makes the impact we're having that much more profound:
Moontanman Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 As I mentioned, we should actually be much cooler right now, which makes the impact we're having that much more profound: Hmm... Infni, I don't see it that way, to me it looks like a warming trend is way over due but that assumes a cyclic warm cool cycle similar to the past warm cool cycles.
Moontanman Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 What is the current average global temperature? About 15c is the best estimate i could get. How does this compare to the average global temps of the past 500 million years? Much cooler than most of that time? Accord to the chart infini has shown 22 degrees is the warmest and 12 would be low point. Looking at from that perspective 15 degrees doesn't look all that bad. I'm really not trying to disprove global warming i just want to put it in perspective with past temps. .
InfiniteNow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 But that's neither here, nor there, Mike. Right now it would be cooler without humans. Right now, humans are warming the climate, and that warming is not natural. Right now, plants and animals are dying as a result of our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, and we are (quite literally) destroying the base of the food chain on which we exist, as well as feeding more destructive and extreme weather conditions which devastate our habitats (residential and farming both).
Moontanman Posted July 8, 2008 Report Posted July 8, 2008 But that's neither here, nor there, Mike. Right now it would be cooler without humans. Right now, humans are warming the climate, and that warming is not natural. Right now, plants and animals are dying as a result of our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, and we are (quite literally) destroying the base of the food chain on which we exist, as well as feeding more destructive and extreme weather conditions which devastate our habitats (residential and farming both). That is part of my point, the Earth and it's biosphere doesn't exist to service us, it changes as the climate changes. For us to say it should be the way that serves us best is hubris on a huge scale. I will agree all day long we should change the climate any more than is absolutely necessary but to think we control the climate or that we should control the climate is just plain wrong. Not only that but the changes we have made are minuscule compared to the changes in the broad sweep of time. Animal populations will change as the climate changes. If we want a stable climate we need to leave the earth and construct our own biospheres. No matter how hard we try the Earth is going to change, if our tiny change from the current norm is a disastrous change then we are doomed because the mere presence of humans on this planet are going to cause change. We cannot avoid it with out cutting our numbers back to around a few million or so. I don't think that is going to happen.
Recommended Posts