Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Post Reply New Topic

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Robert Frost (An appropriate name for the poem subject)

The world has gone through naturally caused periods of warming and naturally caused periods of cooling. The climate is ALWAYS changing. Lately the Chicken Little Squad whose scare had been The Sky is Melting has now adopted the term Climate Change. That means they can blame anything in the Capitalists for any reason whatsoever. Whatever bad things happen it is the Capitalists who are to blame especially America.

The Chinese will get off Scot free for turning their skies blacker than Pittsburgh during its worst days. America is to blame. Forever and always.

ruveyn

Ehhhhh...

I don't doubt the facts supporting it, but I do doubt the theory or the way they are normally interpreted in Global Warming.

I think we are just more of a catalyst than a super villain.

Yes, we regard our climate as 'normal' because that is what we, and everything we know, evolved in. Of course the planet will survive the changes, and we probably will survive the changes as a species as well - but that doesn't mean that it will be fun for us, that we will come out the better for it, or that it won't involve a great deal of suffering for humans and many other species.

LKL: Maybe that graph would be easier to understand if its scale was consistant. And linked to instead of tripling the post size.

Anyways, the idea is that 1. Global warming is man-made and 2. It is preventable. Even with the graph as it is now, it should be obvious that that isn't the case at all.

The truth is that many species would die out, but if we went back to the world being tropical in Oregon and Washington, then I'm pretty sure that the species that weren't designed specifically for the cold temperatures would be fine. The other species would spread. Even if you consider the polar species dying out to be a horrible thing, global warming is what happens naturally and is likely just the planet fixing itself, and we really can't fight the planet's natural tendencies. That's something that people should have learned eons ago. I'd prefer to focus on problems that can be fixed.

For example: What will become of American agriculture if the Ogallala aquifer dries up? What can be done to stop this?

I guess there's 3 types of 'believers':

1. Global warming isn't happening
2. Global warming is happening but it's a natural event
3. Global warming is happening but it's a man made event

If there's a group of people who say 'we don't know' more than anyone else, it's scientists. Not because they haven't done the research and calculation, but because you're talking about huge calculations, with almost infinite variables. We don't know tends to mean - let's try as hard as we can so that we CAN know.

Having done environmental engineering models in the first half of my degree, I'd be seriously taking the logical scientific viewpoints.

If I was a 1) I'd want to try my hardest to discover why this group of people believe otherwise and I'd want to do so without pre-formulating a judgment about the result. You can have a hypothesis - that global warming isn't real - but as Francis Bacon would attest, you must be willing to see past it if the experiment indicates otherwise.

If I was a 2) I'd want to try my hardest to discover the potential impact and possible mitigation solutions and try my hardest to implement them if the result is an unnacceptable loss.

If I was a 3) I'd want to do the same as if I were a 2.

Having recently spoken to my Environmental Science professor after some time, his opinion was that politicians were ignoring the science - on both sides of the arena - and that he was moving to New Zealand just in case.

No. The idea is that recent (several decades) warming is caused (at least in part) by the activities of man. This is not just idle speculation but a well-argued scientific hypothesis with plenty of supporting evidence. The fact that global mean temperatures vary in a cyclical way, and that we've had vastly different temperatures way back in geological time does not mean that we are not causing changes now by burning fossil fuels. We are actually rapidly releasing vast quantities of carbon that are normally locked-up beneath the earth's surface over millions of years. Furthermore, a mechanism common to the scientific literature in explaining many of these changes in the past is the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are now increasing that independently of factors that were/are present such as large-scale volcanism or Milankovitch forcing. The point is that we are messing with a mechanism which we do not fully understand in a way that could cause us a lot of grief. Personally, I don't really care what's done about it, and knowing what i do about mankind doubt much will be done anyway. I do, however, find it bizarre that many people can argue against the possibility of athropogenic warming whilst obviously knowing very little about the subject.

It is clear from the graph that we have been as warm in the past, and that occurred by natural causes; that, however, does not negate the evidence that much of the current warming trend is anthropogenic. There have been many large extinction events in the past, before humans even existed on the planet; that does not mean that most of the current extinctions are not anthropogenic.

We are changing the game by our very existence. When Europeans first came to the New World and started cutting down trees, they laughed at the idea that they could possibly have an impact on the spread of the temperate forests of North America. When the redwoods started being logged, the loggers laughed at the idea that they could possibly wipe out old-growth redwood. History is rife with examples of humans overcoming nature, both by intention and by accident.

p.s. sorry about the size of the graph. It was smaller in the version that I linked to. The timescale has to be inconsistent to include that much time, but still give a good look at recent history.

Well, my last post got killed by my internet connection. I'll try and remember all the points I made.

So the argument is now that global warming is "caused (at least in part) by the activities of man"? Of course we cause a part of global warming! We cause it by breathing! We may do so in other ways, but saying that the argument is that we cause a part of global warming is an absurd and nonsense comment and any significant change to that would make it indistinguishable from what I already said.

In regards to your comment about CO2 (which will be covered in the final portion of this post): You might want to read the link I provided, especially the end of the fourth paragraph under Mesozoic Climate, which states (as I pointed out in a previous post) that the CO2 levels don't explain the climate during the Mesozoic.

Right now, I'd like to re-state my point for those who don't get it: My argument has nothing to do with "natural cycles" or anything of that sort. It has to do with the assumption that global temperatures, as they are now, are "normal" and that humans are making them abnormal. Quite clearly, neither is the case, and the sheer arrogance of the idea that humans are at all significant in global processes or that we can control these global processes is absurd. Human beings need to get over themselves. (By the way, just as I was finishing this post, I read yours, LKL, and keep in mind that I am saying global processes here, not just affecting other living things) (edit: I forgot to mention in this second post that part of my point is that the current temperature is a remnant from the ice ages we have had recently.)

Now, you may argue that .28% is significant in causing the temperature to rise at the rate that it is (since "significant" is, after all, subjective, and many arguments place emphasis on 1/100 degree temperature changes), but the temperature is rising anyway, and fast. Aside from that, much of the .28% is made up of things that cannot or will not be changed soon. How many people do you know, for example, that are willing to give up beef altogether? What about those willing to do without metal?

One last thing, ascan: Please do not tell me I'm wrong using what essentially amounts to "common knowledge" as your argument. Arguing with "common knowledge" is probably the most annoying thing to me.

Saying that we 'cause global warming by breathing' is a straw-man (or something). You know good and well that that's among the least of the CO2 emissions that humans produce.

If we can change the local climate by cutting down a local forest (and we can; it's really well-documented), why is it so difficult to imagine that we can change the global climate by changing the global atmosphere?

And, again: Yes, there were climate variations in the past. Yes, it's been warm in the past. Yes, there have been extinctions in the past. None of those things, however, is sufficient to demonstrate that the current rate of global warming is not primarily anthropogenic.

I am, btw, a vegetarian - primarily because of the environmental impacts, as opposed to PETA-type reasons. As an American, I can't really give up metal, but I do recycle pretty much everything I can.

LKL, here's the difference between local (deforestation) or individual (such as single-species extinctions) changes and global changes: Go to the nearest tree and chop it down. Go and kill a deer. Now go and try to stop the tide from coming in.

Do you see the difference now?

Not only is the difference in actual capability comparison (a single species' extinction vs. the earth), but consider the momentum. As I've said before, the evidence indicates that the current climate is a remnant of the recent ice ages. This means that the Earth had plans for warming up long before we arrived, and has been.

CO2 emissions from breathing have actually been figured as about 5-10% of our total CO2 emissions. If .28% is significant, isn't 5-10%? Also keep in mind that, for example, elephants are contributers to global warming (in the form of CO2). We are not special; we are animals. Yes, we contribute to certain things (such as extinctions or local changes) more than other animals, but it's not nearly as significant as others would claim.

And don't forget: You are not the only person on Earth. Plenty of people are considerably different than you are. Most would refuse to do without metal or beef or any of the hundreds of other things we do that I haven't mentioned (cement, for example) that contribute to global warming. Pretty much everything we do emits some sort of greenhouse gas. We would need to stop pretty much everything to change that.

Are you serious?


It appears your reading comprehension skills leave a little to be desired as it actually states "Higher CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels certainly played a part...".


I'm telling you you're wrong based on the 100+ papers dealing with Mesozoic climate that I've read over the last year. Of course, if you wish to continue talking out your rear, then that's your prerogative.

Global warming is happening, yes, because the climate has been changing ever since the world was created... Duh.

It's not all down to us, a lot of it is just natural. Ya know what gives off CO2? Cow farts. In some places, cow farts actually give off more CO2 than cars.

However, the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. No, global warming won't sink the world or make it flood in 2012 or any other crap. If it does have some effects, it'll happen verrrry slowly over centuries.

Did you know that in the 1950s there were 5,000 polar bears, but in 2007 there were five times as many? Yes, five times as many. About 25,000 to be more precise.

I never said that CO2 doesn't play a part in global warming, but you might want to read past the part that you can use to prove your point. I can tell that your argument is really strong [/sarcasm]

What exactly have you learned about the Mesozoic climate over the past year? What are these papers? Who wrote them? Is the climate of the Mesozoic dealt with specifically and individually, or as an argument involving global warming? Did they compare the CO2 levels and temperature with the theoretical result of high CO2 levels? I referenced something specific because I wanted to point out specific evidence. Saying "I read lots of papers about climate" doesn't mean anything. It also doesn't provide any information about the kind of paper you're reading. There are plenty of papers out there that make absurd claims with little actual evidence, not to mention the ones that make the argument you're making: With this, then because of this.

I try to understand MrLoony. You say that the little amount of CO2 brethed by men (And compensated by our agriculture...) count for the global warming, but that the HUGE amount of CO2 accumulated during hundred of millions of years and released in less that two century count for nothing.

It's like adding water in a funtain who reuse his own water. Even though the funtain recycle, it will overflow by the water that is added.

Of course there had been period where the earth was warmer, but that's not the point. The point is that we live tremendous changes in the climate and that the vast majority of scientists agree that the human specie is RESPONSABLE. It's the speed of this changes that is dangerous.