Man-Made Climate Change ... take 78

[jammies]

The greenhouse effect is not speculation, it is observed fact. It is directly responsible for Venus being HOTTER at the surface than Mercury, despite it being much farther away from the Sun. It is also responsible for the Earth being about 25 degrees Celsius (on average) warmer than it would be without the effect.

Adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will, in the long run, increase the average temperature of the Earth. This could potentially have catastrophic effects on the weather, as higher temperature = more energy = more volatile conditions. Nobody knows exactly what might happen at significantly higher CO2 levels (other than it will in the aggregate make temperatures rise), however it is highly probable that extreme weather conditions, like hurricanes, tornadoes and other high-energy expressions of weather will increase in frequency and severity.

None of this is at all controversial. It is certainly true that other factors affect climate other than CO2 concentration, however this is missing the point as we have little control over those other factors, but we DO have control over how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere. For an analogy, think of a drunk driver - certainly it is possible you can get in an accident when you aren't drunk, and you might avoid accidents when you are drunk, but it doesn't follow that therefore you can't definitively say that drunk driving is dangerous.

In the same way, we might avoid violent climate change if we keep on pumping up the CO2 levels, but to do so is essentially like drunk driving - you are depending on everything going your way to avoid catastrophe.

This is not to say that bringing on a catastrophe now in order to avoid one later is the prudent course, as some people seem to think - you could not suddenly end dependence on fossil fuels tomorrow unless you were willing to watch the global economy crash, have all nations destabilized, and have massive famines afflict huge populations. On the other hand, though, foisting the problem off on the future isn't a very good strategy either.

Public debate on what should be done, however, is being sidetracked by people who do not understand the difference between anecdotal and scientific evidence or speculation and theory; people who are, to be frank, deceiving themselves. For example:

1. The "global cooling" theory in the 70s was proposed by newspapers (ie - journalists), not scientists. It was the result of a SINGLE paper which mentioned that aerosol pollution of the atmosphere MIGHT cause global cooling if the amount of sunlight blocked by the pollution was great enough. Using this tired old argument as an example of how science is mutable only shows the person using it has not bothered to do any actual research on the subject. You can go here to read an article about this very subject.

2. The "Glacier Girl" certainly didn't get under 270 feet of ice by snow accumulating on top of it over 50 years. Even at the highest observed ratio of snowfall to ice formation (3:1), that would mean 810 feet of snow fell on top of her, or around 16 feet a year, every year. At a more reasonable ration of 10:1 snow/ice, that's 2700 feet of snow or 54 feet a year. Actual average snowfall: 3 feet/year.

If you think about it, however, it becomes clear that the amount of snow falling in Greenland is completely irrelevant to the idea of the ice caps melting - the important question is whether MORE ice melts than is formed, not how MUCH ice is formed. There is actually more snow falling due to higher temperatures, as more water evaporates into the atmosphere, but if you are gaining an extra few inches on top while losing feet at the bottom, it doesn't take a climatologist to figure out that you are running a net deficit.

So, in summary, how much ice the plane was under tells you nothing about how much ice has accumulated on top of it, and furthermore is completely irrelevant to determining whether or not the aggregate amount of ice is increasing or declining, anyway.

3. I want to stress again that the AVERAGE temperature is rising, but this doesn't mean that a particular region's temperature is going to rise, and in fact it is dead certain that if the global temperature rises only a few degrees, there WILL be areas where it will get colder. For an example, if you lived somewhere like Britain where ocean currents greatly moderate the temperature, if those currents are interrupted or redirected by climate change there could be drastic drops in average temperature. Britain is at the same latitude as southern Canada, but the climate is much warmer than ours solely due to these warming effects.

That is why how OUR weather here in Calgary (or wherever you may be) shakes out is useless as an indicator of whether global warming is occurring (leaving aside the equally valid point that weather is not the same as climate). You might as well argue that because you've never seen a hurricane on the prairie, hurricanes are a myth.

[FlamesAddiction]

Thank you for that... ^^^^^^^^^^

Somebody should sticky that post!

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Thank you for that... ^^^^^^^^^^

Somebody should sticky that post!

copy and paste from wikipedia?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by jammies

The greenhouse effect is not speculation, it is observed fact. It is directly responsible for Venus being HOTTER at the surface than Mercury, despite it being much farther away from the Sun. It is also responsible for the Earth being about 25 degrees Celsius (on average) warmer than it would be without the effect.

The greenhouse effect? or the fact Venus has a atmosphere roughly 92X as dense as earths and mercury essentially has none, might have something to do with it regardless of composition.

Not that i am saying the carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it, but thats a apple to oranges comparison. For all intents and purposed Mercury doesn't have a atmosphere.

Furthermore the ratio of carbon dioxide on earth(0.03811%) in miniscule compared to the ratio on venus(97+%)

So while we might gather from the information on Venus that the carbon dioxide will cause global warming, using that info to try and say how much it will cause it to increase is absurd because there is no way to compare them sensibly.

[jammies]

Are you seriously asking? Go look on wikipedia and see for yourself. For one thing, I don't know how wikipedia would have presciently known we'd be discussing the "Glacier Girl"...

PS - although now that I read the wikipedia article, it is interesting to note that near the end it mentions "global dimming", which is the effect of aerosols blocking sunlight and somewhat mitigating global warming. So I guess one solution would be to buy lots of spray cans and aim them at the sky.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Dan02

The greenhouse effect? or the fact Venus has a atmosphere roughly 92X as dense as earths and mercury essentially has none, might have something to do with it regardless of composition.

Not that i am saying the carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it, but thats a apple to oranges comparison. For all intents and purposed Mercury doesn't have a atmosphere.

Furthermore the ratio of carbon dioxide on earth(0.03811%) in miniscule compared to the ratio on venus(97+%)

So while we might gather from the information on Venus that the carbon dioxide will cause global warming, using that info to try and say how much it will cause it to increase is absurd because there is no way to compare them sensibly.

Well, if I had made any claims as to how much temperatures would increase, that would be relevant, but I specifically said we don't know how much it will, as other factors are involved. We certainly aren't in any danger of Venus-like conditions, to be sure.

It is very likely that Venus' atmosphere was much like Earth's billions of years ago, but the runaway greenhouse effect turned it into what it is today - 97% CO2 and extremely dense, as you say. Since the whole point of comparing the different planets is to determine why Venus is the hottest of the three , I am not sure what the relevance of Mercury not having an atmosphere at all or Earth's being much less dense has to do with it - that is the whole POINT, it is hotter because of the greenhouse effect that has changed its atmospheric composition and density.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by jammies

Well, if I had made any claims as to how much temperatures would increase, that would be relevant, but I specifically said we don't know how much it will, as other factors are involved. We certainly aren't in any danger of Venus-like conditions, to be sure.

Did you not make the claim that it was "directly responsible" for the temperature of Venus being as hot as Mercury? while directly responsible might not be a exact number it certainly looks to me like you meant most/almost all of it.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by jammies

It is very likely that Venus' atmosphere was much like Earth's billions of years ago, but the runaway greenhouse effect turned it into what it is today - 97% CO2 and extremely dense, as you say.

I can't speak for Venus in particular and don't care do to the research, but as planets age they have a tendency to loose their atmosphere as they age not gain it. To me the notion that Venus ever had a atmosphere like Earths is quite questionable.

I've heard the claim that Mars may have had a atmosphere quite similar to earths at one time, but never have i heard the same said for Venus.

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The statements in bold are not at all what I said or representative of the points I was trying to make. Oh well, I'm tired of banging my head against the wall.

I would agree, but I think I am more than open to discuss this here and calling our debate the equivalent of banging your head against a brick wall is insulting. Soooo, I have to go back at your points.

So you maintain the statements in italics below are "not at all what I said or representive of the points I was trying to make" ... allow me to refresh you on our discussion:

---
1. You took issue with how a climate change article references scientists and imply that they should provide us with direction of who are the scientists?

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I love how these things always refer to 'scientists'. What kind of scientists? Meteorologists? Climatologists? Arctic ecologists? Pharmacists? Nuclear physicists?

We are never provided with the pertinent information...

You are right. You didn't imply, you outright said it.


----
2. You asked me "WHICH scientists? What are their fields? ", I said "look it up"

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

89-it's not blind skepticism because I don't like the conclusions. That's a rather easy way out you took there. Again, you keep referring to scientists. WHICH scientists? What are their fields?

I am really not sure how I miscontrued that. And if you meant to imply that others should be asking these questions, then I can easily be implying that others should be looking it up as well. There is no white-washing by the media stories. Everything is provided to find an answer.


---
3. your skepticism is the engine of science, but you/one has to actually LOOK for the answers instead of complaining that they were not provided.

See the first sentence in your above quote "89-it's not blind skepticism because I don't like the conclusions."

Also this is a compliment, an attempt to bridge our discussion - since we are gradually merging to the same point. I am saying there is NOTHING wrong with skepticism, as long as it is not empty (and I am not implying that yours is).


---
4. However, my "beef" with those questions is the implied suggestion that the news story lacks credibility. That the information in question is less true...

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

It's an article, and an extremely vague one, announcing the report. There's absolutely no meat provided by the link.
...
We are never provided with the pertinent information. I'm also getting sick of articles that say scientists 'have proven' something. Science has never proven anything.

To me your points imply that the story lacks credibility... again, maybe it is just me...


---
5. your questions are brought up as a critique regularly, in a manner of debate that is seen in the Ben Stein Expelled debates (see discussions between the experts and the people behind the movie). Huh?

Ok. I will do the leg-work for you, sorry if I wasn't clear...

First, the debates here on CalgaryPuck:
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...=56139&page=14

Or see the bottom here:
http://www.realdetroitweekly.com/article_4101.shtml

Now, I am not accusing YOU of this here, I am saying that your questions used in lesser minds can lead to ignorance of the truth. A defence mechanism for hearing something you don't like.



AND...


---
6. And as for money influencing results, yes, you are right, money influences results a HUGE number of studies. However, my little point was just that the argument that ALL of the scientists were paid to push the climate-change agenda is absurd

Even when I say you are right you take issue with it! I was merely trying to further explain my earlier point when I said:
"...As far as a "conspiracy theory" that they are all being influenced by some greater power, then that is another issue all together..."


and you replied with,

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Your labelling of money influencing results as a conspiracy theory is a bit naive.

I was merely trying to take this point out of this discussion because obviously many studies have an agenda, have been funded by those with agendas, or have no agenda whatsoever. So yes, it is naive to think that money doesn't influence results, but I was never making that point.



Anyways, good chat.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Flames89

I would agree, but I think I am more than open to discuss this here and calling our debate the equivalent of banging your head against a brick wall is insulting. Soooo, I have to go back at your points.

So you maintain the statements in italics below are "not at all what I said or representive of the points I was trying to make" ... allow me to refresh you on our discussion:

---
1. You took issue with how a climate change article references scientists and imply that they should provide us with direction of who are the scientists?
You are right. You didn't imply, you outright said it.


----
2. You asked me "WHICH scientists? What are their fields? ", I said "look it up"
I am really not sure how I miscontrued that. And if you meant to imply that others should be asking these questions, then I can easily be implying that others should be looking it up as well. There is no white-washing by the media stories. Everything is provided to find an answer.


---
3. your skepticism is the engine of science, but you/one has to actually LOOK for the answers instead of complaining that they were not provided.

See the first sentence in your above quote "89-it's not blind skepticism because I don't like the conclusions."

Also this is a compliment, an attempt to bridge our discussion - since we are gradually merging to the same point. I am saying there is NOTHING wrong with skepticism, as long as it is not empty (and I am not implying that yours is).


---
4. However, my "beef" with those questions is the implied suggestion that the news story lacks credibility. That the information in question is less true...
To me your points imply that the story lacks credibility... again, maybe it is just me...


---
5. your questions are brought up as a critique regularly, in a manner of debate that is seen in the Ben Stein Expelled debates (see discussions between the experts and the people behind the movie). Huh?

Ok. I will do the leg-work for you, sorry if I wasn't clear...

First, the debates here on CalgaryPuck:
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...=56139&page=14

Or see the bottom here:
http://www.realdetroitweekly.com/article_4101.shtml

Now, I am not accusing YOU of this here, I am saying that your questions used in lesser minds can lead to ignorance of the truth. A defence mechanism for hearing something you don't like.



AND...


---
6. And as for money influencing results, yes, you are right, money influences results a HUGE number of studies. However, my little point was just that the argument that ALL of the scientists were paid to push the climate-change agenda is absurd

Even when I say you are right you take issue with it! I was merely trying to further explain my earlier point when I said:
"...As far as a "conspiracy theory" that they are all being influenced by some greater power, then that is another issue all together..."


and you replied with,

I was merely trying to take this point out of this discussion because obviously many studies have an agenda, have been funded by those with agendas, or have no agenda whatsoever. So yes, it is naive to think that money doesn't influence results, but I was never making that point.



Anyways, good chat.

Is it a good chat? To me it looks like much of the debate has been derailed with discussion on the syntax of the way the big picture has been worded. Global warming vs. climate change.
Or the way in which reports are delivered or science is accepted, if at all.
Which I guess is par for the course with this topic.

[AnarChrist]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Yes increase CO2 causes greenhouse effect which will increase temperatures, yes that concept has been around for a long time....and certainly has an effect, how much? That is what is up to debate...

but why the need in those circles to call it climate change? when this article is focusing on global warming...

The two terms are interchangeable. Global warming was the first term used, because it was an accurate representative description of what was happening globally. But then a group of people started to make less than intelligent commentaries about it not being warm in their part of the world, so Global Warming must be wrong. These individuals, who failed to understand weather patterns and dynamics of the systems, required a term that would appeal to their senses so Climate Change was born. They both speak to the same issue. Climate change is more widely used now.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Odd...

Originally Posted by Flames89

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...9-b22c5f2c5df9

"The problem is that Solomon's "deniers" don't actually deny climate change. They quibble about the details."

"But try as he might, Solomon fails to find a single reputable character who will contest the major hypothesis: The human burning of fossil fuels is affecting the world's climate in an unprecedented and dangerous way."

"Instead, Solomon has rounded up the usual suspects and revelled in the usual arguments. He quotes Dr. Edward Wegman's criticism of the famous hockey stick graph without admitting that Wegman testified before a U.S. Senate committee that he believes the globe is warming and that humans are to blame."

This is an interesting point, and one that Solomon actually makes in his book. None of the scientists he discusses outright claim that man has no impact on the climate and environment, however, many of them take the more moderate view of man being at most one small component. The theory of greenhouse gases is irrefutable; carbon dioxide does trap infrared light and keep it close to the earth. Far from being a terrible phenomenon, this mechanism is entirely essential for life on earth to exist. However, many of the scientists that Solomon profiles point to the woeful lack of consideration of other factors, such as clouds, the ocean, and cosmic ray flux, all of which greatly contribute to climatic conditions on earth.

This lack of understanding and recognition of these other factors are essential in the modelling that we are being shown projecting even more dramatic climatic change over the next century. The fact is, these models are highly, highly flawed in that they can't even predict past events with any amount of accuracy, and yet we are relying on them to guide policy to avoid what they're telling us will happen in 50, 100, or 200 years into the future. This is insanity.

In addition to this, while Flames89 is correct in pointing out that some of the scientists profiled by Solomon do still believe in AG global warming, when you consider together all the key points they convincingly refute, the case for AG global warming starts to look pretty shaky. For more information I would highly recommend reading his book The Deniers. It is very well written and generally understandable for laymen to read.

Now, I for one fully support making changes to our lifestyle. I think our wastefulness as a society is shocking and appalling. I think that if each person would take initiatives on a personal level to reduce waste and pollution we would all be much better off. I also support the sensible restriction of pollution and environmental impacts at an industrial level, but continue to support economic growth and development. However, I do not believe that in doing so we will successfully avoid a catastrophe that we are causing. As an earlier poster pointed out, there are many natural cycles in place (the Carbon Cycle, the Water Cycle, etc.) the keep the earth stable and more or less in balance. The CO2 we generate is a drop in the bucket compared to net CO2 released from all sources, natural and man-made. Also, the additional CO2 we release is largely compensated for by oceanic activity and other mechanisms.

In the end, I believe that we are all being scared and bullied into taking unnecessary and drastic action to avoid something that will probably never happen. I also feel that this will become clear in the following years and decades as climate continues to change in spite of anything we do to try to prevent it.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Odd...

Originally Posted by Flames89

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...9-b22c5f2c5df9

"The problem is that Solomon's "deniers" don't actually deny climate change. They quibble about the details."

"But try as he might, Solomon fails to find a single reputable character who will contest the major hypothesis: The human burning of fossil fuels is affecting the world's climate in an unprecedented and dangerous way."

"Instead, Solomon has rounded up the usual suspects and revelled in the usual arguments. He quotes Dr. Edward Wegman's criticism of the famous hockey stick graph without admitting that Wegman testified before a U.S. Senate committee that he believes the globe is warming and that humans are to blame."

This is an interesting point, and one that Solomon actually makes in his book. None of the scientists he discusses outright claim that man has no impact on the climate and environment, however, many of them take the more moderate view of man being at most one small component. The theory of greenhouse gases is irrefutable; carbon dioxide does trap infrared light and keep it close to the earth. Far from being a terrible phenomenon, this mechanism is entirely essential for life on earth to exist. However, many of the scientists that Solomon profiles point to the woeful lack of consideration of other factors, such as clouds, the ocean, and cosmic ray flux, all of which greatly contribute to climatic conditions on earth.

This lack of understanding and recognition of these other factors are essential in the modelling that we are being shown projecting even more dramatic climatic change over the next century. The fact is, these models are highly, highly flawed in that they can't even predict past events with any amount of accuracy, and yet we are relying on them to guide policy to avoid what they're telling us will happen in 50, 100, or 200 years into the future. This is insanity.

In addition to this, while Flames89 is correct in pointing out that some of the scientists profiled by Solomon do still believe in AG global warming, when you consider together all the key points they convincingly refute, the case for AG global warming starts to look pretty shaky. For more information I would highly recommend reading his book The Deniers. It is very well written and generally understandable for laymen to read.

Now, I for one fully support making changes to our lifestyle. I think our wastefulness as a society is shocking and appalling. I think that if each person would take initiatives on a personal level to reduce waste and pollution we would all be much better off. I also support the sensible restriction of pollution and environmental impacts at an industrial level, but continue to support economic growth and development. However, I do not believe that in doing so we will successfully avoid a catastrophe that we are causing. As an earlier poster pointed out, there are many natural cycles in place (the Carbon Cycle, the Water Cycle, etc.) the keep the earth stable and more or less in balance. The CO2 we generate is a drop in the bucket compared to net CO2 released from all sources, natural and man-made. Also, the additional CO2 we release is largely compensated for by oceanic activity and other mechanisms.

In the end, I believe that we are all being scared and bullied into taking unnecessary and drastic action to avoid something that will probably never happen. I also feel that this will become clear in the following years and decades as climate continues to change in spite of anything we do to try to prevent it.

[AnarChrist]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...arbonemissions

This probably won't be accepted as proof of anything on this board, but another scientific body of note publishes more proof that we have a problem and must take action.

[Calgaryborn]

Don't know if this is fata but here is a web site funded by private donations{non-corporate} that lists scientist who reject the theory of man caused global warming:

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Don't know if this is fata but here is a web site funded by private donations{non-corporate} that lists scientist who reject the theory of man caused global warming:

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

1. Dr. Giggles
2. Dr. Zhivago
3. Dr. Doctor
4. Dr. Pepper

I kid, I kid.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Don't know if this is fata but here is a web site funded by private donations{non-corporate} that lists scientist who reject the theory of man caused global warming:

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

Of those 31,000 names, less than a third have PhDs in any field. But it gets worse. Only 40 are climatologists. DFF's question (to wit: what scientists? what are their qulifications?) seems apropos here.

[Azure]

We should add all the climate change threads together and then I'll have my million post thread.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

We should add all the climate change threads together and then I'll have my million post thread.

Only a million? You're not thinking big enough! I think we can get to a billion, easy!

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by troutman

1. Dr. Giggles
2. Dr. Zhivago
3. Dr. Doctor
4. Dr. Pepper

I kid, I kid.

Shouldn't Dr. Doolittle be on that list too?