Anyone wanna debate Global Warming?

[actsnoblemartin]

You might be right, but shouldnt we be open to the idea, that maybe, just maybe there is something we can do about it.

Just a thought patriot.

Even if temps are increasing faster than in the past, that doesnt necessitate a human component in that increase. If there's o human component, then there's nothing we can do about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Firs, you make the very astute observation that:

Please understand that the fact that we know about a climate change is because it leaves behind evidence taken from very very very long periods of time. Man's existence on earth, if compared to a complete calendar year, is equal to less than an hour. Change on earth occurs very slowly, excluding an impact from a foreign object.

Then you say:

The increased Co2 levels increased at a rate [the generic] we have never seen before

Given your first statement: How do you know?

we know that humans can increase Co2 levels. We also know that increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect. Therefore, the IPCC has determined that Global Warming is man made.

This is correlation, not causation.
That humans CAN increase CO2 levels doesnt mean that of CO2 levels go up, it was caused by humans.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Even if temps are increasing faster than in the past, that doesnt necessitate a human component in that increase. If there's o human component, then there's nothing we can do about it.

M14Shooter, we are able to observe the Co2 concentration in past atmospheres because we can examine bubbles of air trapped in ice frozen for thousands of years. Since we can know the rate of entrapment, due to dating methods, we can evaluate co2 concentration and rate of change throughout extended periods of time. This is why we know that our current co2 ppm growth rates are unusually high.

I'd like to here your response to the "what if" part of my post. If we are wrong yet change, then we're not much worse off. But if we are right and don't change, we are screwed, along with generations behind us. The time to act is now, and sometimes the best action is based on instinct. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I believe 450ppm is the limit before irreversible damage, and we're getting close to that number, but not to the point that we can't stop growth.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why does anybody want to "fix" something that's not broken?

Temperature fluctuations are the norm. It's something the earth does. Why don't we just ride it out like we have in the past, instead of messing with it? I think it's pretty obvious that whenever we try to mess with nature, we end up making a bigger mess than we started with.

 

[CharlestonChad]

This is correlation, not causation.
That humans CAN increase CO2 levels doesnt mean that of CO2 levels go up, it was caused by humans.

We are 100% positive CO2 is released by burning fossil fuels. The debate lies in whether CO2 is the main and/or preventable cause of GW.

 

[Angel Heart]

Please post recent reports. The atmospheric and surface compositions are so much different between the two that it would be almost ignorant to compare the two.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
17:00 16 May 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Fred Pearce

Switch off the Sun and Earth would become a very chilly place. No one denies our star's central role in determining how warm our planet is. The issue today is how much solar changes have contributed to the recent warming, and what that tells us about future climate.

The total amount of solar energy reaching Earth can vary due to changes in the Sun's output, such as those associated with sunspots, or in Earth's orbit. Orbital oscillations can also result in different parts of Earth getting more or less sunlight even when the total amount reaching the planet remains constant – similar to the way the tilt in Earth's axis produces the hemispheric seasons. There may also be more subtle effects (see Climate myths: Cosmic rays are causing climate change), but these remain unproven.

On timescales that vary from millions of years through to the more familiar 11-year sunspot cycles, variations in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth have a huge influence on our atmosphere and climate. But the Sun is far from being the only player.

How do we know? According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun’s heat.

Amplified effect
Nearer our own time, the coming and going of the ice ages that have gripped the planet in the past two million years were probably triggered by fractional changes in solar heating (caused by wobbles in the planet’s orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles).

The cooling and warming during the ice ages and interglacial periods, however, was far greater than would be expected from the tiny changes in solar energy reaching the Earth. The temperature changes must have been somehow amplified. This most probably happened through the growth of ice sheets, which reflect more solar radiation back into space than darker land or ocean, and transfers of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the ocean.

Analysis of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica shows a very strong correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and temperatures. But what causes what? Proponents of solar influence point out that that temperatures sometimes change first. This, they say, suggest that warming causes rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not vice versa. What is actually happening is a far more complicated interaction (see Ice cores show CO2 only rose after the start of warm periods).

Sunspot trouble
So what role, if any, have solar fluctuations had in recent temperature changes? While we can work out how Earth's orbit has changed going back many millions of years, we have no first-hand record of the changes in solar output associated with sunspots before the 20th century.

It is true that sunspot records go back to the 17th century, but sunspots actually block the Sun's radiation. It is the smaller bright spots (faculae) that increase the Sun's output and these were not recorded until more recently. The correlation between sunspots and bright faculae is not perfect, so estimates of solar activity based on sunspot records may be out by as much as 30%.

The other method of working out past solar activity is to measure levels of carbon-14 and beryllium-10 in tree rings and ice cores. These isotopes are formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, and higher sunspot activity is associated with increases in the solar wind that deflect more galactic cosmic rays away from Earth. Yet again, though, the correlation is not perfect. What is more, recent evidence suggests that the deposition of beryllium-10 can be affected by climate changes, making it even less reliable as a measure of past solar activity.

Recent rises
Despite these problems, most studies suggest that before the industrial age, there was a good correlation between natural “forcings" – solar fluctuations and other factors such as the dust ejected by volcanoes – and average global temperatures. Solar forcing may have been largely responsible for warming in the late 19th and early 20th century, levelling off during the mid-century cooling (see Global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980).

The 2007 IPCC report halved the maximum likely influence of solar forcing on warming over the past 250 years from 40% to 20%. This was based on a reanalysis of the likely changes in solar forcing since the 17th century.

But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).

Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend.

Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.

Each of those links work and dives even deeper into the subject.

 

[CharlestonChad]

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Each of those links work and dives even deeper into the subject.

Thanks for the support. I'm glad you've changed your opinion, unless you just didn't read that article, which says that solar activity has not changed enough to create such dramatic temp changes.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Why does anybody want to "fix" something that's not broken?

Temperature fluctuations are the norm. It's something the earth does. Why don't we just ride it out like we have in the past, instead of messing with it? I think it's pretty obvious that whenever we try to mess with nature, we end up making a bigger mess than we started with.

I've read about 10 of your posts so far, and I can honestly say in each one of your posts you've managed to contradict yourself by the time you stopped tying. Surely this is your joke account, . If not, you probably should have been sterilized by now.

Props though, you've got a lot of people really worked up on this site.

 

[bobn]

We are 100% positive CO2 is released by burning fossil fuels. The debate lies in whether CO2 is the main and/or preventable cause of GW.

This is the internet. You'll be suprised what some people are willing to debate. Elsewhere I have seen skeptics arguing that the greenhouse effect cannot exist and meaning it.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not saying absolutely that global warming doesn't exist. All I'm saying is it's a natural phenomenon and not something we need to "fix". It's sort of funny that people have the arrogance to think they can.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I'm not saying absolutely that global warming doesn't exist. All I'm saying is it's a natural phenomenon and not something we need to "fix". It's sort of funny that people have the arrogance to think they can.

Once again you can't finish a post without contradiction

"It's arrogant to think you can fix the world"

Well chief, it's pretty damn arrogant to ignore all the shit we've covered it with.

Your next post:

"Smog is natural guys. Oil spills happened before we were on earth. CFC's aren't man-made. Nuclear waste is perfectly normal!"

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14Shooter, we are able to observe the Co2 concentration in past atmospheres because we can examine bubbles of air trapped in ice frozen for thousands of years.

This doesnt address what I said.

The argument:

we know that humans can increase Co2 levels. We also know that increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect. Therefore, the IPCC has determined that Global Warming is man made.

This is correlation, not causation.
That humans CAN increase CO2 levels doesnt mean that of CO2 levels go up, it was caused by humans. Thus, the IPCC determination is flawed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are 100% positive CO2 is released by burning fossil fuels.

And about a zillion other things.

 

[ReillyT]

This is correlation, not causation.
That humans CAN increase CO2 levels doesnt mean that of CO2 levels go up, it was caused by humans. Thus, the IPCC determination is flawed.

That isn't right. He also pointed out that it is 100% certain that burning fossil fuels releases CO2. Thus human activity is increasing the amount of CO2, and if CO2 levels are rising, humans are at least partially responsible for it (although there may be other factors). That isn't a question of correlation, it is a question of addition.

 

[CharlestonChad]

This doesnt address what I said.

The argument:

This is correlation, not causation.
That humans CAN increase CO2 levels doesnt mean that of CO2 levels go up, it was caused by humans. Thus, the IPCC determination is flawed.

Try thinking about it again:

Humans expel Co2 into the atmosphere. This is fact.
If Co2 in the atmosphere increases, and humans are expelling Co2 into the atmosphere, then humans are on some level responsible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Try thinking about it again:
Humans expel Co2 into the atmosphere. This is fact.
If Co2 in the atmosphere increases, and humans are expelling Co2 into the atmosphere, then humans are on some level responsible.

There's a difference between "on some level" and "to a significant degree".

YOU expel CO2. YOU are therefore, on some level, responible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That isn't right. He also pointed out that it is 100% certain that burning fossil fuels releases CO2. Thus human activity is increasing the amount of CO2, and if CO2 levels are rising, humans are at least partially responsible for it (although there may be other factors). That isn't a question of correlation, it is a question of addition.

"Humans are at least partially responsible for it (although there may be other factors" is a --VERY-- different statement than the original "Global Warming is man made".

 

[bobn]

Human activity emits about 28 billion tons of co2 per year into the atmosphere.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

Atmospheric co2 levels are increasing at about 2ppm, or 15 billion tons of co2 per year.

Human emissions more than explain the recent co2 rise. Thanks to nature about half of emissions from human activity are absorbed.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think we should all keep an open mind re global warming and that requires looking at ALL the evidence presented by the AGW/global warming proponents and the AGW/global warming skeptics. We certainly have gone through a miniscule--that's a TINY--global warming phase the last decade or so though that seems to have leveled off about the Year 2000 and credible scientists think we very well may have peaked and have begun an overall cooling thrend.

On any given day the Earth will be warming or cooling. That is a given.

The fact that we are hard put to find bonafide climatologists who will support the popular AGW theories or even the global warming theorie should give us serious pause for thought.

For those who want the truth rather than to be vindicated in believing the fallacies they have been fed, they will look at ALL the data from both sides. Right now, I believe the skeptics have the more persuasive data. I am willing to be persuaded should different evidence come to light.

For now I do not wish to put the world economy into jeopardy, do not wish to condemn hundreds of millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty, and/or seriously alter my lifestyle for something that is likely to be proved to be bogus science.

 

[ReillyT]

The fact that we are hard put to find bonafide climatologists who will support the popular AGW theories or even the global warming theorie should give us serious pause for thought.

Right now, I believe the skeptics have the more persuasive data. I am willing to be persuaded should different evidence come to light.

I have tried to look at the evidence for global warming, but to be honest, at some point it reaches a level of scientific complexity that exceeds (significantly) my ability to understand. So, I am just going to trust the majority of the experts.

To that end, it seems pretty clear that there is scientific consensus behind the issue of man-made global warming.

This is what I have found on wikipedia (I realize it is not the most trustworthy source, but it seems like it would be very easy to double-check if it is accurate, and the page has remained essentially the same for at least 3 months.)

Statements by concurring organizations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
U.S. National Research Council, 2001
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

Noncommittal statements
American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

Dissenting Statements
"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."