My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[goku]

Yes there are natural things taking in CO2, but in this case of us'ns here-n-now, we have conveniently chopped down and or let burn those little beauties in great numbers while at the same time giving them more work to do. Shall we cut your grazing land Goku and give you another 30 head of cows? What will you naturally do then? :shrug: :)

 

if you gave me the cows, i could make enough money to compensate for the lost land. could, it's possible.

 

i believe the faster it grows, the more it cleans.

i say cut down all the rain forests and plant corn.

it grows fast, we can eat it, or we can burn it

 

and yea, i see your point, i think.

do more with less

 

and speaking of turtles, i think box turtles migrate.

[freeztar]

if you gave me the cows, i could make enough money to compensate for the lost land. could, it's possible.

 

i believe the faster it grows, the more it cleans.

i say cut down all the rain forests and plant corn.

it grows fast, we can eat it, or we can burn it

 

and yea, i see your point, i think.

do more with less

 

and speaking of turtles, i think box turtles migrate.

 

Goku, you obviously completely missed the point that Turtle was trying to make.

 

Your last string of comments leave much to be desired and are adding nothing to the thread. If you'd like to learn more about this subject, then approach it with a matching attitude. Otherwise, the staff will continue to give you infractions. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. :shrug:

[engineerdude]

Well, I started this thread a while back, I looked at the first few replies then I forgot about it. I was happy to see so many people sounding off, and having interest.

 

I treated global warming as sort of a hobby last summer, and I did some thorough research and literature reviews to try and figure this all out. I kept an open mind, and just looked at things from an analytical, scientific manner.

 

To sum up my findings, there is absolutely no scientific basis for the idea that people have anything to do with global warming. I have encountered many caring, concerned people who espouse anthropomorphic global warming, but not a one of them can actually back up anything they say with hard science. I am flabbergasted and disappointed that the Nobel people would be involved in this effort. And I now cringe whenever I hear lawmakers discussing possible solutions to what, as far as I can tell, is a purely imaginary problem.

 

I have scanned through the numerous replies and posts on this thread. To all of you who believe in the popular theory of global warming, please do me a favor:

 

Post one item of evidence that you have that is in favor of global warming. Don't write a book, and please don't list everything you believe in, just list them one at a time and give me a little time to read and respond. Based on my notes, current science debunks every thing I can find that people have put out in favor of man-made climate change. Please post an idea, and if I can't disprove it in a sentence or two, I would be very happy to be reassured that our civilization has not gone insane, that I have in fact missed something.

[Moontanman]

 

 

Yes speaking of Box turtles, I raise and breed them, box turtles not only do not migrate they stay in close proximity to where they are born and if taken away from that place they will try to go back. The do not migrate. so in addition to all the other silliness you insist on interjecting you are wrong about box turtles as well.

[Moontanman]

Well, I started this thread a while back, I looked at the first few replies then I forgot about it. I was happy to see so many people sounding off, and having interest.

 

I treated global warming as sort of a hobby last summer, and I did some thorough research and literature reviews to try and figure this all out. I kept an open mind, and just looked at things from an analytical, scientific manner.

 

To sum up my findings, there is absolutely no scientific basis for the idea that people have anything to do with global warming. I have encountered many caring, concerned people who espouse anthropomorphic global warming, but not a one of them can actually back up anything they say with hard science. I am flabbergasted and disappointed that the Nobel people would be involved in this effort. And I now cringe whenever I hear lawmakers discussing possible solutions to what, as far as I can tell, is a purely imaginary problem.

 

I have scanned through the numerous replies and posts on this thread. To all of you who believe in the popular theory of global warming, please do me a favor:

 

Post one item of evidence that you have that is in favor of global warming. Don't write a book, and please don't list everything you believe in, just list them one at a time and give me a little time to read and respond. Based on my notes, current science debunks every thing I can find that people have put out in favor of man-made climate change. Please post an idea, and if I can't disprove it in a sentence or two, I would be very happy to be reassured that our civilization has not gone insane, that I have in fact missed something.

 

Ok, I'll bite, I used to think like you but I was persuaded to the Global warming side. so here goes.

 

How about the retreating glaciers, polar ice and the rise in CO2 levels that track the retreat of glaciers the melting of polar ice reasonably close?

[freeztar]

Well, I started this thread a while back, I looked at the first few replies then I forgot about it. I was happy to see so many people sounding off, and having interest.

 

I treated global warming as sort of a hobby last summer, and I did some thorough research and literature reviews to try and figure this all out. I kept an open mind, and just looked at things from an analytical, scientific manner.

 

To sum up my findings, there is absolutely no scientific basis for the idea that people have anything to do with global warming.

 

I must ask, what "thorough research and literature reviews" did you actually pursue. Whatever lead you to your conclusion, assuming such hardy research,would certainly be of much interest to many of us here.

 

In other words, don't just say it is bunk, debunk it! It's not only scientifically apropos, it is also a site rule.

[Zythryn]

Post one item of evidence that you have that is in favor of global warming.

 

I've posted this before, but I will do so again since you asked.

 

A.) CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs long wavelength energy leading to a retention of heat energy in the atmosphere that would normally escape into space.

B.) Mankind's emissions of CO2 plus natural emissions of CO2 are more than the earth's system absorbs each year, leading to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

If you have anything indicating either of these are not the case, please share;)

[engineerdude]

From Moontanman,

 

How about the retreating glaciers, polar ice and the rise in CO2 levels that track the retreat of glaciers the melting of polar ice reasonably close?

 

Thanks so much for talking with me. My response:

 

The science has certainly shown a distinct link between CO2 and global temperatures. The only question is, does CO2 affect global temperature or does global temperature affect CO2 levels?

 

The data people generally reference mostly comes from ice core samples done by the Vostok project. From this data, charts have been made that graph out temperature and CO2 changes over the last 650k years or so. One such chart is found here:

 

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

 

Take a look at the chart. The problem is that this chart is drawn backwards from what we are all used to seeing. In this chart, what happened first is on the right hand side, what occurred later is to the left. If you look closely at the chart, you can see that CO2 level lags temperature changes by a bit. There were times when temperature changed abruptly, and it took hundreds of years for CO2 to catch up.

 

Another source for this is the people who accumulated the actual data itself. To quote them, "ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciation" To paraphrase, this means that CO2 changes 600 to 1000 years after a significant change in temperature happens. The ice records demonstrate that changes in CO2 do not affect world temperature, but that temperature determines the levels of CO2 in the air.

 

The direct link to the Vostok data where I got this quote from is here:

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html

 

The vast majority of CO2 is removed from the air by the oceans, and people speculate that the ocean's efficiency to take up CO2 is decreased when the water gets warmer. But, for whatever reason, the ice core data clearly shows that from a cause-and-effect perspective, temperature is a cause and CO2 level is an effect.

 

As far as retreating glaciers and such, everyone agrees that the world is getting warmer. But the world has been far warmer in it's pre-SUV days than it is now - the Vikings named Greenland not as a joke, but because it was actually green when they landed there.

 

-Brian

[engineerdude]

I must ask, what "thorough research and literature reviews" did you actually pursue. Whatever lead you to your conclusion, assuming such hardy research,would certainly be of much interest to many of us here.

 

In other words, don't just say it is bunk, debunk it! It's not only scientifically apropos, it is also a site rule.

 

Eh I've kept pretty good records, and I'd be happy to post a list of my sources - once I hit ten posts and can post links.

 

But, since we are all science-oriented people, let's follow the scientific method, as I have proposed. Post hypothesis supporting your arguments that people have anything to do with global warming, and if your idea cannot be proven false then we will assume it is correct. Despite best efforts by many theories like evolution and gravity continue to stand up to all criticism - let's see if Global Warming can do the same.

[Moontanman]

Eh I've kept pretty good records, and I'd be happy to post a list of my sources - once I hit ten posts and can post links.

 

But, since we are all science-oriented people, let's follow the scientific method, as I have proposed. Post hypothesis supporting your arguments that people have anything to do with global warming, and if your idea cannot be proven false then we will assume it is correct. Despite best efforts by many theories like evolution and gravity continue to stand up to all criticism - let's see if Global Warming can do the same.

 

Hey I asked specific questions is my post chopped liver? Lets hear your answer to it.

[engineerdude]

I've posted this before, but I will do so again since you asked.

 

A.) CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs long wavelength energy leading to a retention of heat energy in the atmosphere that would normally escape into space.

B.) Mankind's emissions of CO2 plus natural emissions of CO2 are more than the earth's system absorbs each year, leading to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

If you have anything indicating either of these are not the case, please share;)

 

Thanks for responding to me on this:

 

A) You are, of course, absolutely right that CO2 absorbs infrared. However, from a practical standpoint, there is basically zero CO2 in our atmosphere. The major "greenhouse gas" in our atmosphere is water vapor, at around 10,000 parts-per million (ppm) as compared to 400 ppm for CO2. A doubling or tripling in the amount of CO2 doesn't effect the overall level of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.

 

Consider the planet Mars, which has around 10 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth does. Mars is way cooler than Earth, and all the CO2 at Mars doesn't keep the nighttime temperature from dropping to -200 degrees C or so. Clearly, all the other stuff in Earth's air slow heat loss as well.

 

:( Historically, CO2 levels have periodically been way higher than they are now, in the days long before man discovered fire. Co2 levels rose and fell many times over our planet's history, and the system of CO2 contribution and removal has always been able to remove large levels. To say that we are overloading the Earth's complex feedback mechanisms is, as far as I can tell, without basis.

[engineerdude]

Hey I asked specific questions is my post chopped liver? Lets hear your answer to it.

 

See my post a few spots above, above, I believe I fully responded.

[REASON]

Well, I started this thread a while back, I looked at the first few replies then I forgot about it. I was happy to see so many people sounding off, and having interest.

 

I treated global warming as sort of a hobby last summer, and I did some thorough research and literature reviews to try and figure this all out. I kept an open mind, and just looked at things from an analytical, scientific manner.

 

To sum up my findings, there is absolutely no scientific basis for the idea that people have anything to do with global warming. I have encountered many caring, concerned people who espouse anthropomorphic global warming, but not a one of them can actually back up anything they say with hard science. I am flabbergasted and disappointed that the Nobel people would be involved in this effort. And I now cringe whenever I hear lawmakers discussing possible solutions to what, as far as I can tell, is a purely imaginary problem.

 

I have scanned through the numerous replies and posts on this thread. To all of you who believe in the popular theory of global warming, please do me a favor:

 

Post one item of evidence that you have that is in favor of global warming. Don't write a book, and please don't list everything you believe in, just list them one at a time and give me a little time to read and respond. Based on my notes, current science debunks every thing I can find that people have put out in favor of man-made climate change. Please post an idea, and if I can't disprove it in a sentence or two, I would be very happy to be reassured that our civilization has not gone insane, that I have in fact missed something.

 

You have not provided any of your findings. You are simply waving your hands.

 

I have participated throughout this thread, and have read every post. There is a myriad of information supporting global warming that has been provided, little of which has been properly debunked if at all.

 

We have agreed that the climate models are not perfect and that it is difficult to account for all of the complex systems that are involved in the delicate balance that is our atmosphere.

 

But one thing that is well understood and supported by readings, is that the mean global temperature has been steadily rising at an accelerated rate over the last century, and something is causing it to happen. Can we agree on that?

 

Here is a chart from the Wikipedia article on Global Warming that denotes the temperature increase:

 

[img=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png[/img]

 

This graph has been presented numerous times in this thread.

 

I have asked those who reject AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) to provide an alternate explanation for the accelerated rate of average global temperatures if it is not being caused by the constant burning of fossil fuels, which is continually adding CO2, a known greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere. Only Turtle has done so with his couriousness relating to the potential impact of undersea volcanism. While that can constitute a perfectly legitimate scientific explanation, even he will openly admit that there just isn't enough evidence to conclude that volcanism of this type is what is causing the steep increase in temperature. Like any good scientist, he is continuing his investigation into it's plausibility.

 

But I don't believe Turtle is looking into underwater volcanism because he doesn't believe AGW is possible, he is doing so because it is something that must be ruled out if we are to be certain that AGW is actually occurring, and he isn't convinced that it has been properly considered in the atmospheric models since information is lacking.

 

The increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activities is being thoroughly considered. Here is a chart that looks at the average increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since 1960:

 

[img=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg/800px-]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg/800px-[/img]

 

While it is true that correlation does not constitute causation, the correlation between the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature is striking, and it would seem foolish to disregard the idea that they are related.

 

So unless you are simply denying that the average global temperature is increasing at an accelerated rate, you must have an alternate explanation for the increase that is better supported by evidence, and which has convinced you to reject the data that has been assembled by the world's foremost climatologists working in behalf of the IPCC.

 

And as freeztar noted above, we would be more than eager to see it.

[engineerdude]

Please, before you guys thrash me, please at least read the responses I have made to your comments.

 

OK, in response to reason's post, where he showed a chart of temperature from 1860 to present, which he got from Wikipedia.

 

That chart is a very selective chart, which begins at the point our planet emerged from what is known as the little ice age. People use this particular time frame to make the record appear like a "hockey stick". Why start in 1850? People were still getting around by horse-and-buggy in 1850, and our oil addiction didn't even get going until the 1940's or later. We did not really start pumping carbon into the atmosphere until the 1950's - why did the temperature jump so much for the hundred years people were producing negligible CO2? The CO2 chart you show and the temperature data are clear uses of selective charting in an effort to mislead.

 

Here's a chart with a little longer time frame:

 

Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

and here's one with an even longer time frame. Please note that this chart is backwards, our present day is on the left side.

 

CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years

 

The thing to garner from all these charts is that climate has swung widely over the geologic record, in period way before people learned how to light fires. Our current temperature is higher than average, but nothing that really stands out.

 

So, you ask, why is temperature higher now than it was before? Here's the answer:

 

Image:Carbon-14 with activity labels.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Again, modern time is on the left of this chart.

 

Basically, it seems that while the Earth's climate is complex, how warm it is mostly depends on how much solar radiation we receive. We are currently in a maximum for solar activity, which is a periodic thing the sun does.

 

Here's a link to a site that has a combined chart of solar activity, CO2 levels, and fossil fuel usage. It's on the first page near the bottom.

 

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

[freeztar]

Solar activity does not account for everything.

 

For almost the entire month of February 2006 the sun was utterly blank. If Galileo had looked at the sun on his 442nd birthday, he would have been disappointed--no sunspots, no spin, no discovery.

 

What's going on? NASA solar physicist David Hathaway explains: "Solar minimum has arrived."

 

Sunspots come and go with an 11-year rhythm called the sunspot cycle. At the cycle's peak, solar maximum, the sun is continually peppered with spots, some as big as the planet Jupiter. But for every peak there is a valley, and during solar minimum months can go by without a single sunspot.

 

"That's where we are now--at minimum," says Hathaway.

 

Actually, we're at the beginning of the minimum. February 2006 was the first month in almost ten years with mostly no sunspots. For 21 of February's 28 days, the sun was blank. Hathaway expects this situation to continue for the rest of 2006.

NASA - Solar Minimum has Arrived

 

Solar variation can not account for all of the observable effects we've witnessed while observing climate systems.

[Essay]

Here's a link to a site that has a combined chart of solar activity, CO2 levels, and fossil fuel usage. It's on the first page near the bottom.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

 

EDude! Cool that your serious about this stuff!

I have some neat points about the "CO2 follows temp change" thing, but later.

...and yes the solar stuff is detailed in the IPCC report... something like 'accounting for ~15% of observed warming.'

===

 

But... first let me go to your last link (above). Easily discredited... :(

(ordinarily I like to answer specifics, so this is for others' benefit; but you should know your sources).

===

...from historycommons.org....

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Profile: Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

 

"1998: Petition Calling on US to Reject Kyoto Protocol Employs Misleading Tactics

Frederick Seitz, a former tobacco company scientist and former National Academy of Sciences president, writes and circulates a letter asking scientists to sign a petition calling upon the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was authored by an obscure group by the name of “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.” [seitz, 1998] Seitz includes in his letter a report arguing that carbon dioxide emissions do not pose a threat to the global climate. The report—which is not peer reviewed—is formatted to look like an article from the esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). ...."

 

"...is formatted to look like an article from the esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)."

Gee, where have I seen this tactic still being employed (htp:/ww.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf...

hint, hint).

===

 

...and hey, look at the first graph on that link which concludes that glacier retreat started before large-scale fossil fuel usage.

What!? Look at the graph. It almost exactly matches! Admittedly the retreat line is narrower (attenuated) relative to the usage cumulation line, but....

 

They have almost the exact same shape and duration. The rate of change of slope for the retreat line is closely proportional to the usage line. They match almost exactly.

 

Except for the "smoothed average" that they've added, I can see no reason to say the two lines do not show a close linkage.

Does anyone else see that these two lines are not closely proportional?

 

~ Carry on (...back to specifics)!

[Flying Binghi]

Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored

 

Heres somebody who doubts the IPCC -

 

Via Michael Duffy November 8, 2008

 

Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.

 

As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]“.

 

Now, this is completely wrong.

 

Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored - Michael Duffy