Global Warming?

[Porphyre]

Well, there are experts stating that global warming may be a myth.  They too have evidence and facts to back up their data.  There are some that say global warming does exist but the impact is not so severe.  Some experts say that within a few years the damage will be irreversible and all future generations are doomed.  So there are alot of experts saying alot of things on this matter.  Science is a very political thing with alot of grant money at stake.  With that come fads for theories.  Right now global warming is a "hot topic" for grant money and research.  Right now saying that you want to disprove global warming is a good way not to get grant money.  Science is not nearly so unbiased as people seem to believe.  So saying that all experts agree is a very misleading and false statement.  They don't..nor will they ever agree.  They don't even agree on gravity.

Also a debate means that the subject is getting attention.  People always want to tap their foot and get impatient with debates.  The topic is being discussed, people are at least open to conversations about this topic.  There is mixed feelings that are mingling openly in public.  When those feelings are not allowed to mingle in public, then society has reached a conclusion and that is all there will be.  A few years ago global warming wasn't really discussed, now it is at the forefront of many public debates.  That means alot of people consider it important enough to start a fight over.  Take that as a good sign if you care about the topic.

You can never expect there to be no scientists who do not propose an opposing viewpoint. There are 'scientists' who believe anything and everything, including that the world is flat. If all the information is carefully presented, and the conclusion is particularly obvious, it still will never be enough to reach a consensus among all 'scientists', who are people with agendas too.

Not all of them have agendas and not all of them are in this for grants. I would encourage anyone though, given the stakes, to err on the side of caution and listen to what a whole lot of them are saying.

[OldSchoolGamer]

As meteorology and climatology are hobbies of mine, I'll give my $0.02 worth.

First, there's nothing new about the idea of CO2-induced global warming.  Even back in the Fifties and Sixties, the consensus was that industrial CO2 probably would raise the Earth's temperature around 1 to 2 degrees Celsius by the middle of the 21st century. 

But then the computer modelers and climate scientists decided that, hey, 1 to 2 degrees wasn't urgent enough.  So they began assuming that a warming would have other effects, like melting permafrost and whatnot, and used these alleged secondary effects to trump up the extent of the warming.  That's how 1 to 2 degrees turned into 2 to 5 degrees, and then the infamous 4 to 12 degrees Celsius that would indeed have catastrophic effects.

However, there are a couple of glaring issues with the doomsday scenarios.

First, there's no way to justify anything close to those numbers based on CO2 alone.  Each doubling of CO2 has the same effect on climate.  In other words, going from 0 to 100ppm has the same effect as going from 100 to 200, which has the same effect as 200 to 400, which is much the same as 400 to 800, and so on.  In other words, as CO2 concentrations increase, the effect of each new ppm of CO2 decreases.  This is the problem with the assertion that temperatures are all of a sudden going to increase on an accelerating curve--the properties of CO2 just don't work that way.

Second, the computer models assume feedback loops that, while seeming logical on the surface, don't really stand up to scrutiny.  More and more evidence is being discovered that the Earth's climate has in fact shifted back and forth and all around on its own, rather frequently.  If the Earth were that prone to vicious cycles of temperature, we'd be buried in ice or half the planet would be a burning desert by now.  The fact that the Earth is still around with a temperate climate after hundreds of millions of years indicates that it is able to absorb changes in temperature without, to use an unscientific term, freaking out about it.

Third, a look at ice cores and other fossil records shows, astonishingly, that CO2 is often a lagging rather than a leading indicator of temperature change.  In other words, temperature changes and then CO2 changes.  The fossil record also shows that, not too long ago (in geologic time) we tipped into a moderately intense Ice Age at over three times the ambient level of atmospheric CO2 we have today, and in the absence of any discernible forcing (like a meteor impact or heavy volcanism).  Inject that level of CO2 into the IPCC model, and we'd be growing banyan trees at McMurdo in Antarctica.  Obviously a screw is loose somewhere.

Fourth, if you're looking for an external forcing mechanism to account for temperature change, you need look no further than Sol itself.

[Porphyre]

Although I think debating this is a bad idea, I can't let some things go.

But then the computer modelers and climate scientists decided that, hey, 1 to 2 degrees wasn't urgent enough.  So they began assuming that a warming would have other effects, like melting permafrost and whatnot, and used these alleged secondary effects to trump up the extent of the warming.  That's how 1 to 2 degrees turned into 2 to 5 degrees, and then the infamous 4 to 12 degrees Celsius that would indeed have catastrophic effects.

However, there are a couple of glaring issues with the doomsday scenarios.

There's also some glaring issues with such a simplified model that assumes an understanding of the chain reaction a 2 degree alteration in global temperature would do to a complex system. The fact of the matter is that the largest supercomputers in the world are being used to calculate the impact of a single degree of change, so I'm not sure where you can confidently gather this knowledge and claim that it's undisputed, while using it to dispute other claims.

I have never read an article or listened to a speaker who's proposed that the correlation between climate change and CO2 is as simple as you put it here.

I also find it extremely unlikely that all the people, who do know this information as more than just a hobby, would not be aware of the most basic properties of CO2 and would hear your argument and just be like "oh, well I guess that's true" That's just a straw man you're putting up. If you really want to present that kind of evidence, you should be aware of the opposite position, which is not ignorance of the simple properties you're quoting. If they believe it is going to increase exponentially, you should explain why they believe that, or you don't know.

Second, the computer models assume feedback loops that, while seeming logical on the surface, don't really stand up to scrutiny.  More and more evidence is being discovered that the Earth's climate has in fact shifted back and forth and all around on its own, rather frequently.  If the Earth were that prone to vicious cycles of temperature, we'd be buried in ice or half the planet would be a burning desert by now.  The fact that the Earth is still around with a temperate climate after hundreds of millions of years indicates that it is able to absorb changes in temperature without, to use an unscientific term, freaking out about it.

More straw men. You seem to be picking information peace-meal and not giving it without any consideration of what is actually said about the earth's cyclical changes and its relations to climate change. Saying that the earth isn't prone to vicious cycles of temperature sounds almost like you're arguing against yourself. The perspective that "oh, the earth can handle it, it just does that, and it fixes itself so don't worry" is hardly much of a point and not something that even addresses the subject.

Third, a look at ice cores and other fossil records shows, astonishingly, that CO2 is often a lagging rather than a leading indicator of temperature change.  In other words, temperature changes and then CO2 changes.  The fossil record also shows that, not too long ago (in geologic time) we tipped into a moderately intense Ice Age at over three times the ambient level of atmospheric CO2 we have today, and in the absence of any discernible forcing (like a meteor impact or heavy volcanism).  Inject that level of CO2 into the IPCC model, and we'd be growing banyan trees at McMurdo in Antarctica.  Obviously a screw is loose somewhere.

Fourth, if you're looking for an external forcing mechanism to account for temperature change, you need look no further than Sol itself.

The only two good points, in my opinion. But again, why make me google for the counter claims? They are a plenty. I won't claim to know every argument, but I can google for it at a whim.
"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet."

Stanford has a different graph:



and their solar institute seems to be well aware of the correlations and have a different opinion on how much weight to give solar cycles: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html
And NASA: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

It's 30 seconds of googling. To be convincing you're going to have to explain where they're wrong. It's not like these topics aren't well known.

[RubySlippers]

Global Climate Change if the majority of scientists are right is going to happen there is nother the United States will be able to do to curb our energy use and use cleaner technology, no money, unless the free market does so due to need.

I say let each country worry about how they are going to care for their people and plan accordingly, I suspect the Fourth and Thrid Worlds well be hit hard by this that is too bad for them the United States has to take care of itself.

[Sherona]

People wonder why those not living in the States think that the citizens of the United States are self-absorbed and arrogant. "Who cares what happens elsewhere, we can't afford to stop throwing huge emissions into the air, can't afford to stop relying on fossil fuels, have to have our amenities. Who cares if our actions effect everyone else who are attempting to curb these things and protect the earth."

Frankly, having universal health care won't help the US at all if we are all suffering from climate changes that are being forcaste. There has to be some sort of compromise.


To me, yes there are naturally emitting of CO2, but as a race we are over balancing...I don't think the predictions are correct in so much that I think that they over exxaggerate the effects, but I do believe there wil be some repercussion.

[RubySlippers]

Those are real issues right now and the US is perfectly capable with some tighter government controls in an emergency to take care of herself and secure our borders, although since the effects of GW will take many decades to develop we have that long to adapt to it. Moving populations already happened from New Orleans and over time that can occur elsewhere as needed. Hydroponic farming and the like can feed us in a less water rich situation and there are ways to develop energy domestically, we have to have a reason to that is beyond refutation.

Its all a crapshoot but in North America we have a natural water barrier and narrow routes to get to the major two nations, and a robust nuclear defense seems to me we are in better shap than China, Asia, the Middle East and Europe if we must go it alone.

Compromise sure you all pay off much of our national debt and maybe we will have the money to do what you ask.

[Oniya]

Its all a crapshoot but in North America we have a natural water barrier and narrow routes to get to the major two nations, and a robust nuclear defense seems to me we are in better shap than China, Asia, the Middle East and Europe if we must go it alone.

Compromise sure you all pay off much of our national debt and maybe we will have the money to do what you ask.

Narrow? *glances at Canadian border*  *glances at Mexican border*

Personally, I think it would boost the economy if we put some effort into finding ways to 'green up'.  After all, implementing new tech is going to require people to build it, from the blue-collars on up.

[Sherona]

Narrow? *glances at Canadian border*  *glances at Mexican border*

Personally, I think it would boost the economy if we put some effort into finding ways to 'green up'.  After all, implementing new tech is going to require people to build it, from the blue-collars on up.

Create more jobs = More working class folks have more money to spend, = Banks get out of the red = Mortgages get paid...the trickle UP affect will work wonders.

Plus getting rid of our dependancy on Fossil Fuels will also get rid of our dependancy on Foriegn Oil, which drains a ton of money OUT of the US.

[RubySlippers]

Actually I was talking Central America Mexico is more of a problem but we can feed them and they can hold the southern approaches for the two remaining major food producers in the world America and Canada. China will likely implode as will India so most of the other major nations don't matter. Europe has the EU and russia is pretty self-sufficient now so seems to me just the poor nations that are not on the good side of the US and Canada have to worry.

As for Green Tech sure its being developed now as the need is demonstrated but the USA can't just mandate things to that level not with special interests fighting it, the need must arise from demand and its not really there yet.

[Sherona]

Those are real issues right now and the US is perfectly capable with some tighter government controls in an emergency to take care of herself and secure our borders, although since the effects of GW will take many decades to develop we have that long to adapt to it. Moving populations already happened from New Orleans and over time that can occur elsewhere as needed. Hydroponic farming and the like can feed us in a less water rich situation and there are ways to develop energy domestically, we have to have a reason to that is beyond refutation.

Its all a crapshoot but in North America we have a natural water barrier and narrow routes to get to the major two nations, and a robust nuclear defense seems to me we are in better shap than China, Asia, the Middle East and Europe if we must go it alone.

Compromise sure you all pay off much of our national debt and maybe we will have the money to do what you ask.

I am in the United States, so every year when I pay my taxes I work to supposedly pay off our national debt as it is. Just because the US MIGHT have defenses to be able to adapt to an environment made hostile to us doesn't mean we should just say "Hey we can do that..to hell with everyone else"

Number 1. If we evacuated ALL coastline people inward, our space for growing and farming in like the Midwest, the world's breadbasket, then less land to grow food in. less land to raise food. Not to mention the destruction of natural habitats to make room for all these evacuees is ...just phenomenol. Of everything we as humans have learned the HARD way, the number one lesson SHOULD be that everything effects everything else. Kill off the plankton, then the animales who thrive on them die out, and it just keeps working up. Any shift in the ecological systems anywhere is massively felt.

Number 2. As part of a global community it really should not be "us vs them" when it comes to the world in and of itself. It should be just us, as in the world population. What effects China, Japan, Korea, Africa, Europe, and the others will effect us in some way form or fashion.

[RubySlippers]

That is not true we have plenty of places to put that portion of our population just put them into areas that have low natural resource limits such as Arizona and we can ration water and use normal conservation technology if we have to. And your making it sound like we need to evacuate everyone tomorrow we have decades to slowly relocate our population to higher and more secure ground.

As for Green Technology we are developing it and without much government money but the cost to use that over the fossil fuels is simply no contest the latter is more affordable. But I'm sure by the end of the century it will be far better and then we can switch over.

Plus your making this sound like for some reaon this is a human problem we are part of nature and are the dominant species right now, if we are doing this its natural just like a wolf pack overfeeding on a limited habitate and then starvation sets in and infighting. We just have to hope the US is the Alpha wolf and can holdour own in our territory. And people worry about the environment well true billions might end up dead that is fine its called survival of the fittest, perhaps nature wants to cull off 75% of humans and this is how?

In the end Green Tech will win when fossil fuels run out we will have to use it and then the Earth wille ventually restabilize and cool off regardless of what we do.

[Sherona]

Nope don't have to do it tomorrow, but delaying solutions because of a debt issue will just make our children have this all dumped in their laps and they will end up holding the bag. Thats your whole argument is "We don't have to worry about it this week, or next year..lets put it off and worry about money issues" but if we do that then it is our children who will have to jump up and scramble.

Green Tech takes time to instate, in order to even hope to keep down the global climate shift we have to have it asap, not whenever its monetarily convienent. As far as I know wolves and other predators generally move about so that they don't over hunt..unless human encroachment makes this too difficult.

The difference is animals listen to instinct...humans tend to listen to money, wealth, and comfort..

[Porphyre]

Plus your making this sound like for some reaon this is a human problem we are part of nature and are the dominant species right now, if we are doing this its natural just like a wolf pack overfeeding on a limited habitate and then starvation sets in and infighting.

The distinction between a man-made problem and a natural one is not a technical distinction, it's an academic distinction. Arguing semantics and saying that we are part of nature, so this is really a natural problem, is to miss the point of making the distinction.

Why not consider domestic assault and murder to fall under 'animal attacks'? We're just animals after all. How is the US doing with regards to animal attacks these days?

[RubySlippers]

Bjorm Lomborg in his two books makes a case that we have the resources to stop Greenhouse Gas emissions just there is no fundamental willingness to spend the resources on it by the people in certain nations. And it can be argued ,and has been, that there may be far more pressing uses for our resources at this time in the case of the United States has other places to spend the money. I don't see the population of my country demanding action on climate change in the majority and willing to make sacrifices in other areas we spend our money on. Its not complicated for me more than that if the people wanted to deal with this and would be willing to make sacreifices in services or pay more taxes then we would be acting. Right now its not a priority for our nation thats all.

Is this a problem I would argue yes its just not big enough a problem for us to worry about right now.