AGW Skepticism and Rationale (Warning: Long)

[Chris]

I think your position opens you up to ridicule. You ignore facts for the purpose of furthering your position. But I will give you a chance to redeem yourself, ok? 1. Do you admit AGW is a hypothesis? 2. Do you admit there is significant scientific rebutal to the AGW hypothesis? 3. Do you demand more research before exposing our economy to what could be meaningless regulations? 4. Do you realize that CO2 emmissions don't operate in a vacuum? Therefore there could be other significant factors leading to global warming? 5. Give everybody the extent to which you believe that CO2 emmissions are having an impact on the enviroment (please be thorough)?

Global warming is not a theory. CO2 causes the earth to warm. No one disputes this. The only question is, How much? You believe that raising the level of CO2 by one third in a scant 200 years is having little or no effect. I disagree. That's it. Soon the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will be double what it was 200 years ago. What will happen then?

Are there other factors involved? Of course. Could Nature counter global warming? Of course. But the vast majority of scientists believe this massive increase in CO2 is the main culprit in global warming. You disagree.

What is striking is the effects that we are seeing. Rising temperatures, melting glaciers, the melting of the North Pole....who knows where all this will lead?

 

[jreeves]

I think your position opens you up to ridicule. You ignore facts for the purpose of furthering your position. But I will give you a chance to redeem yourself, ok? 1. Do you admit AGW is a hypothesis? 2. Do you admit there is significant scientific rebutal to the AGW hypothesis? 3. Do you demand more research before exposing our economy to what could be meaningless regulations? 4. Do you realize that CO2 emmissions don't operate in a vacuum? Therefore there could be other significant factors leading to global warming? 5. Give everybody the extent to which you believe that CO2 emmissions are having an impact on the enviroment (please be thorough)?

AGW isn't global warming now is it Kirk? Could you please respond point by point?

 

[Chris]

AGW isn't global warming now is it Kirk? Could you please respond point by point?

No need to carry this further.

I just explained my position.

 

[jreeves]

No need to carry this further.

I just explained my position.

Of course well if you can't fully explain your position then you are nothing more than a AGW sky is falling heretic.....

 

[Charles_Main]

Of course well if you can't fully explain your position then you are nothing more than a AGW sky is falling heretic.....

I just want to know how long it will be before we all have to pay per breath.

 

[Bern80]

Global warming is not a theory. CO2 causes the earth to warm. No one disputes this. The only question is, How much? You believe that raising the level of CO2 by one third in a scant 200 years is having little or no effect. I disagree. That's it. Soon the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will be double what it was 200 years ago. What will happen then?

Are there other factors involved? Of course. Could Nature counter global warming? Of course. But the vast majority of scientists believe this massive increase in CO2 is the main culprit in global warming. You disagree.

What is striking is the effects that we are seeing. Rising temperatures, melting glaciers, the melting of the North Pole....who knows where all this will lead?

I guess I must have missed something. Science has many, many theories. It has very few laws. I must have missd the part when the theory of global warming graduated to the law of global warming.

What else do we know for fact? We know, for a fact, that our climate has fluctuated in cycles. We know, for a fact, that regardless of our activity, we are in a warming part of said cycle. Thus we know at least some part of what we are experiencing is part of a cycle.

 

[Chris]

I guess I must have missed something. Science has many, many theories. It has very few laws. I must have missd the part when the theory of global warming graduated to the law of global warming.

What else do we know for fact? We know, for a fact, that our climate has fluctuated in cycles. We know, for a fact, that regardless of our activity, we are in a warming part of said cycle. Thus we know at least some part of what we are experiencing is part of a cycle.

You are correct, and the Stanford Solar Center scientists estimate that at the most 25% of global warming comes from an increase in the sun's activity.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the earth to warm. That is a fact, not a theory. We have increased CO2 by one third in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth. The only question is, How much?

 

[Bern80]

You are correct, and the Stanford Solar Center scientists estimate that at the most 25% of global warming comes from an increase in the sun's activity.

That's a little vague. 25% of this particular warming? 25% if any cyclical global warming? If the later what caused the rest?

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the earth to warm. That is a fact, not a theory. We have increased CO2 by one third in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth. The only question is, How much?

This seems to be the common misstep that the non-scientists make. The hit on one thing or one occurance and figure they have the causality loop pinned down. There's more CO2 in the air and the earth is getting wamer thereore the increase in CO2 caused the warming.
Nevermind the myriad other variables that are involved.

 

[Chris]

That's a little vague. 25% of this particular warming? 25% if any cyclical global warming? If the later what caused the rest?



This seems to be the common misstep that the non-scientists make. The hit on one thing or one occurance and figure they have the causality loop pinned down. There's more CO2 in the air and the earth is getting wamer thereore the increase in CO2 caused the warming.
Nevermind the myriad other variables that are involved.

This link shows the history of the science involved...

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[TopGunna]

You are correct, and the Stanford Solar Center scientists estimate that at the most 25% of global warming comes from an increase in the sun's activity.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the earth to warm. That is a fact, not a theory. We have increased CO2 by one third in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth. The only question is, How much?

The Stanford study you cite is from 1999 - before the Earth's entered an 8 year cooling period. But just for kicks, let's play along.

Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle — an increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century — are not strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases.

Now if the average Earth temperature has gone from say 12 degrees C to 12.6 degrees C, that seems like an increase of 5%! Much more than the apparent increase of .2-.3% in solar radiation. Of course, the Celcius scale is an adjusted version of the Kelvin scale, which is a much better metric.

Using the same data, it's equivalent to say the average Earth temperature has risen from 285 K to 285.6 K, or an increase of .2% in total energy. That sure seems to fit nicely with the increase in solar activity, doesn't it?

 

[Chris]

The Stanford study you cite is from 1999 - before the Earth's entered an 8 year cooling period. But just for kicks, let's play along.



Now if the average Earth temperature has gone from say 12 degrees C to 12.6 degrees C, that seems like an increase of 5%! Much more than the apparent increase of .2-.3% in solar radiation. Of course, the Celcius scale is an adjusted version of the Kelvin scale, which is a much better metric.

Using the same data, it's equivalent to say the average Earth temperature has risen from 285 K to 285.6 K, or an increase of .2% in total energy. That sure seems to fit nicely with the increase in solar activity, doesn't it?

Could the sun's activity trump CO2? In the short run, yes. In the long run, who knows?

Here is an interesting article on the subject....

Environmental Economics: Global Warming: Man versus Sun?

 

[Charles_Main]

Could the sun's activity trump CO2? In the short run, yes. In the long run, who knows?

Here is an interesting article on the subject....

Environmental Economics: Global Warming: Man versus Sun?

The thing about the sun is we know it will just keep warming up, then eventually turn into a red giant, and possible engulf us. Of course that will be a long ass time from now so I am not to worried about it

 

[midcan5]

Arguments opposing global warming are similar to arguments against evolution, trickle down (I know they don't call it that anymore), drilling (ruining the earth), welfare (never helps), separation of church and state (why), immigration (nice to have cheap labor), outsourcing (cheap labor again), or any number of issues that are in the conservative wingnut republican universe commandments not issues to consider. Rather than weigh the evidence, the evidence must be politicized and it must be wrong. I have to give the wingnut media credit, they set the tone and the puppets follow. You can trace the information through their network of believers on any topic, they appear in all. The republican party is a sect rather than a political party today.



"At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols." Aldous Huxley

"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow." Anais Nin

 

[Charles_Main]

Debunking Modern Climate Myths

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?

This is the title-question of a major review article by C.R. de Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, which was published in the June 2002 issue of the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. Its focus is the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content and what the consequences of that phenomenon might be for earth's climate and biosphere.

In broaching this subject, de Freitas focuses on certain key questions: Is global climate warming? If so, what part of that warming is due to human activities? How good is the evidence? What are the risks? Finding answers to these questions, he says, "is hindered by widespread confusion regarding key facets of global warming science," and it is these several fallacies or misconceptions that he addresses.

Fallacy 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at alarming rates. It just ain't so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years. He also wonders what is alarming about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which dramatically stimulates the growth rates and enhances the water use efficiencies of essentially all of earth's plants.

Fallacy 2: Humans are big players in the global carbon cycle. In reality, says de Freitas, "anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon." He also notes that the increase in the air's CO2 content over the past few centuries could well have been the result of earth's oceans giving off the gas in response to the planet's recovery from the Little Ice Age.

he goes on with a total of 14 so called fallacies.

Please do not jump all over me, and call me a denier, I just like to read everyones points of view on the subject, not just some of them.

 

[BrianH]

Arguments opposing global warming are similar to arguments against evolution, trickle down (I know they don't call it that anymore), drilling (ruining the earth), welfare (never helps), separation of church and state (why), immigration (nice to have cheap labor), outsourcing (cheap labor again), or any number of issues that are in the conservative wingnut republican universe commandments not issues to consider. Rather than weigh the evidence, the evidence must be politicized and it must be wrong. I have to give the wingnut media credit, they set the tone and the puppets follow. You can trace the information through their network of believers on any topic, they appear in all. The republican party is a sect rather than a political party today.



"At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols." Aldous Huxley

"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow." Anais Nin

I don't think you've correctly characterized the argument against GW in this thread. The argument is based on the FACT that the earth heats and cools in cycles and at different rates. Considering the earth has heated and cooled many times before at completely different rates, without human help or interference, it is impossible to pin-point the exact reasons now. Why, all of a sudden, is global warming attributed to humans, when the globe has done it before without the help of fossil fuel emissions?

 

[Chris]

I don't think you've correctly characterized the argument against GW in this thread. The argument is based on the FACT that the earth heats and cools in cycles and at different rates. Considering the earth has heated and cooled many times before at completely different rates, without human help or interference, it is impossible to pin-point the exact reasons now. Why, all of a sudden, is global warming attributed to humans, when the globe has done it before without the help of fossil fuel emissions?

Because we have increased CO2 by one third in the last 200 years, and the computer models seem to indicate that this is the main reason for the warming. These same models indicate that a doubling of CO2, which we will see in the next decade or so, will lead to a 1.5 to 6 degree increase in global temperatures.

 

[Charles_Main]

Because we have increased CO2 by one third in the last 200 years, and the computer models seem to indicate that this is the main reason for the warming. These same models indicate that a doubling of CO2, which we will see in the next decade or so, will lead to a 1.5 to 6 degree increase in global temperatures.

Fallacy 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at alarming rates. It just ain't so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years. He also wonders what is alarming about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which dramatically stimulates the growth rates and enhances the water use efficiencies of essentially all of earth's plants.

Fallacy 3: There is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. De Freitas debunks the implied message of this myth, i.e., that it is changes in CO2 that drive changes in temperature, by citing many well-documented cases where just the opposite occurred, over periods ranging from months to millennia, reminding us that correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

 

[Chris]

Charles, why do you keep posting liars from the Competitive Institute?

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

 

[Charles_Main]

Charles, why do you keep posting liars from the Competitive Institute?

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

thats right dismiss it as lies. That is so much more easy than say actually reading it.

This is the title-question of a major review article by C.R. de Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand

Yeah sounds like a competitive institute to me.

 

[Chris]

Charles, do you even read what you post?

The guy says that CO2 levels have leveled off in recent years. How hard is that to check? Please look at the link below. He is lying....

Trends in Carbon Dioxide