AGW Skepticism and Rationale (Warning: Long)

[Bern80]

Um last time I check the so called experts were saying CO2 could double, not that it would. Note that most of the scarier climate models all assume that it for sure will double, when that is by no means a certainty.

I'm not sure I see your point or what your correcting me on or whatever. Even if it doubles CO2 would still less than .1% of the atmosphere.

 

[Charles_Main]

I'm not sure I see your point or what your correcting me on or whatever. Even if it doubles CO2 would still less than .1% of the atmosphere.

I know, I was not correcting you, I was just pointing out that the more scary models all assume it will double.

 

[Bern80]

I know, I was not correcting you, I was just pointing out that the more scary models all assume it will double.

And if a scientist could explain the science behind why a doubling of something that makes up less than .1% of our atmosphere is causes this temp increase I would have something to actually consider.

 

[Chris]

Um last time I check the so called experts were saying CO2 could double, not that it would. Note that most of the scarier climate models all assume that it for sure will double, when that is by no means a certainty.

You need to check again. We are increasing the amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere each year.

Here are the raw numbers.....


ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

 

[jreeves]

Sorry, yes it does. The academies represent the scientists in all those 13 countries. The consensus is there. You will not admit it because it does not fit your world view.

The past president thinks its hysteria...as do numerous scientists.

 

[jreeves]

CO2 causes the earth to warm.

We are pumping 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and that amount is accelerating.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by one third in the last 200 years.

CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

Therefore, we are warming the earth.

This assumption is akin to the following;

My doormat is wet, therefore it must have rained.

Not necessarily true.....


The water pipe that runs to the outside hose faucet may have sprung a leak. Your neighbor may have been washing his car and sprayed your mat with water inadvertently. Your neighbor could have been watering his lawn.....etc....

There is no proof that increased CO2 levels have caused the earth to warm. Especially considering, the earth has warmed and cooled for 1000's of years without humans pumping CO2 into the atomsphere.


If the melting of the North pole was caused by increased CO2 levels then why hasn't the temperature of the region changed since 1938?

 

[Bern80]

You need to check again. We are increasing the amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere each year.

Here are the raw numbers.....


ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

Probably yes. That isn't the point being contested. The question is does it have any meaningful impact? From the little I have gathered an increase in CO2 can only do so much mainly because while it is important to us. It is almost insignificant part of the atmosphere on the whole. So for this increase in CO2 (which would still constiute less than .1% of the atmosphere) to have an impact there must be some science behind the notion that something so insignifcant can have such a major impact on climate.

Taking a step back from the science for a minute, the issues I have with this alramism about global warming is that they seem to be so void of any perspective or logic. Perspectibve wise, this is not the warmist the earth has been. That warmth actually saw considerable benefits in parts of the world. Hint: It wasn't named Greenland because it was covered in ice when they found it.

As far as the negatives of going one way or the other, what we really should be afraid of and preparing for is the next ice age which we are unlikely to be able to stop. While totally baseless in science "The Day After Tomorrow" is a good depiction of what most of North America will be like (with a mile of ice on top of it) when the next major ice age rolls around.

I also have come to believe that in this debate or any other perspective is incredibly important. Few people have any sense of their place in time or how insignificant it really is. Few people seem to grasp the big picture in terms of what came before them and what will come after and how little an impact they will most likely have on that.

From a persepctive stand point, it really becomes very unreasonable to think that man is haveing a significant impact on climate change. The Earth is millions if not billions of years old and gone through countless mild to extreme climate cycles that span centuries or several millenia, yet some believe that man is so powerful that we can turn all of that on it's ear in 100 years time. That we have somehow in our brief period of industrialzation, a period so brief that if you plotted a time line of earth history our time hear would barely register, thrown earth's climate cyccle irreversably out of whack.

 

[Chris]

Probably yes. That isn't the point being contested. The question is does it have any meaningful impact? From the little I have gathered an increase in CO2 can only do so much mainly because while it is important to us. It is almost insignificant part of the atmosphere on the whole. So for this increase in CO2 (which would still constiute less than .1% of the atmosphere) to have an impact there must be some science behind the notion that something so insignifcant can have such a major impact on climate.

Taking a step back from the science for a minute, the issues I have with this alramism about global warming is that they seem to be so void of any perspective or logic. Perspectibve wise, this is not the warmist the earth has been. That warmth actually saw considerable benefits in parts of the world. Hint: It wasn't named Greenland because it was covered in ice when they found it.

As far as the negatives of going one way or the other, what we really should be afraid of and preparing for is the next ice age which we are unlikely to be able to stop. While totally baseless in science "The Day After Tomorrow" is a good depiction of what most of North America will be like (with a mile of ice on top of it) when the next major ice age rolls around.

I also have come to believe that in this debate or any other perspective is incredibly important. Few people have any sense of their place in time or how insignificant it really is. Few people seem to grasp the big picture in terms of what came before them and what will come after and how little an impact they will most likely have on that.

From a persepctive stand point, it really becomes very unreasonable to think that man is haveing a significant impact on climate change. The Earth is millions if not billions of years old and gone through countless mild to extreme climate cycles that span centuries or several millenia, yet some believe that man is so powerful that we can turn all of that on it's ear in 100 years time. That we have somehow in our brief period of industrialzation, a period so brief that if you plotted a time line of earth history our time hear would barely register, thrown earth's climate cyccle irreversably out of whack.

When was the last time the North Pole was ice free?

 

[jreeves]

When was the last time the North Pole was ice free?

North Pole's ancient past holds clues about future global warming
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — A treasure trove of scientific data is revealing detailed information about conditions of subtropical warmth at the North Pole about 55 million years ago while also providing a window into the future, when greenhouse gases are expected to reach the same levels that caused Earth's ancient heat wave.
Ancient plankton
Download photo
caption below

Researchers aboard a fleet of icebreakers collected samples by drilling into the floor of the Arctic Ocean during a 2004 expedition, and scientific findings will be published for the first time in several papers to appear Thursday (June 1) in Nature magazine.

"This project was a technological feat, and all of the findings in these papers are especially new and exciting given the fact that nobody's ever taken core samples like this before from the floor of the Arctic Ocean," said Matthew Huber, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences in Purdue University's College of Science. "As a climate modeler, gaining access to this data is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."

The expedition was part of an international research effort called the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, which explores the Earth's history and structure as recorded in seafloor sediments and rocks.

Huber used new data from the research to compare against results from complex climate-model simulations he performed to study and predict the effects of greenhouse gases. He co-authored two research papers to appear in Nature detailing conditions in the Arctic Ocean 55 to 50 million years ago during a time of unprecedented global warmth.

The cylindrical core samples contained the remains of ancient plant and animal life, which yielded critical new information about the Arctic Ocean during that time. Researchers used a recently developed technique called TEX-86, which enables scientists to measure the temperatures that existed when ancient organisms lived by analyzing the composition of fatty substances called lipids in their cell membranes. Using this technique, the researchers found that sea surface temperatures at the North Pole had soared to 23 degrees Celsius, or around 73 degrees Fahrenheit, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or the PETM, about 55 million years ago. Today's mean annual temperature at the North Pole is around minus 20 degrees Celsius, Huber said.


Hmm... so 55 million years ago the temperature was at 23 degrees Celsius and the temperatures today are at -20 degrees Celsius. I guess those Dinosaurs were really pumping some CO2 into the atomsphere......

 

[Diuretic]

You said:



I stated the article does not state that there is a consensus that man is the predominant cause of the warming trend. To which you seem to have pointed to the above statement in thinking that it actually does say that. Again, it doesn't.

"The scientific academies of 13 countries on Tuesday urged the world to act more forcefully to limit the threat posed by human-driven global warming."

I think that sentence is pretty clear.

 

[Diuretic]

The past president thinks its hysteria...as do numerous scientists.

Which past president of what?

 

[Diuretic]

New CO2 evidence means climate change predictions are 'too optimistic' - Times Online

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing much faster and will be harder to control than scientists have predicted, a study has found.

An international team of researchers has found that, since 2000, the rate at which CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere is 35 per cent greater than most climate change models have allowed for.

The conclusions have serious implications for forecasts of how much and how quickly the world’s temperature will rise and mean that global warming will be harder and more expensive to control than feared. The results also mean that international efforts to bring CO2 emissions under control will need to be more far-reaching.

Professor Nicholas Owens, of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), said that the findings were so worrying that they made previous widely accepted forecasts of climate change seem unduly optimistic.

More at link.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Speaking of reading comprehension, here is a quote from the article....

"The scientific academies of 13 countries on Tuesday urged the world to act more forcefully to limit the threat posed by human-driven global warming."

"In a joint statement, the academies of the Group of 8 industrialized countries — Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States — and of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa called on the industrialized countries to lead a “transition to a low-carbon society” and aggressively move to limit impacts from changes in climate that are already under way and impossible to stop."

"The statement, posted by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, urged the Group of 8 countries to move beyond last year’s pledge to consider halving global emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 and “make maximum efforts” to reach this target. "

You do realize that the national academies of science represent the scientists is all of these 13 countries, don't you?

The bolded part is an outright lie.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry, yes it does. The academies represent the scientists in all those 13 countries. The consensus is there. You will not admit it because it does not fit your world view.

Bald face lie.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"The scientific academies of 13 countries on Tuesday urged the world to act more forcefully to limit the threat posed by human-driven global warming."

I think that sentence is pretty clear.

And it does not say there is a consensus.

 

[Diuretic]

And it does not say there is a consensus.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But the consensus exists.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But the consensus exists.

I believe that we have gone over this and that in the past threads determined that at best 31 or percent is the number of documented scientists claiming Global warming is being caused by man. Last I checked 31 percent is not even half. Now the argument in that thread boiled down to the loons claiming that since there was not another list of 32 percent claiming otherwise they were right.

 

[jreeves]

Which past president of what?

The academy of Sciences....

 

[Diuretic]

I believe that we have gone over this and that in the past threads determined that at best 31 or percent is the number of documented scientists claiming Global warming is being caused by man. Last I checked 31 percent is not even half. Now the argument in that thread boiled down to the loons claiming that since there was not another list of 32 percent claiming otherwise they were right.

A consenus is different from a simple majority.

 

[Diuretic]

The academy of Sciences....

Which one?