Global Warming

[SeVeR]

Gore's inconvenient truth showed that global warming is a natural cycle. It also showed us that the part of the cycle we're currently in is completely unnatural and goes well beyond all previous global warming highs. This isn't a small increase, it can't be caused by statistical, natural deviations.

 

You say its not anthropogenic, but what else could be causing it? This unnatural trend just happens to be happening now... when humans start polluting the air with carbon dioxide and methane for the first time in our millions of years of history.

 

I agree with Astro that the debate is manufactured to produce skepticism where there should almost be none. What people don't understand, they're reluctant to believe.

[NBVegita]

Obviously you have not done your home work you would know that that is wrong. First of in the holocene maximum we had higher temperatures. And when you deal with climate, you don't deal with centuries. As we just came out of the "little Ice age" before coming into the "industrial warming age" Also note that his models only represent a closed time period from 1860 (sometimes 1880) to present.

 

http://www.17thparallel.com/vegita/global4.gif

http://www.17thparallel.com/vegita/global1.jpg

http://www.17thparallel.com/vegita/global2.jpg

http://www.17thparallel.com/vegita/global3.gif

 

Just a few things if you look past a millennium.

 

Al Gore has also refused all requests for a head on head debate with all scientists, economists, and policy experts.

 

And to be hypocritical, his house in Tennessee user 20 times the energy of the average home.

Edited April 7, 2007 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

Gore was looking well beyond 1000 years. I've seen graphs that only show a century of warming and know full well that they're deceptive. Gore is not my hero and i don't deny that he may be a hypocrite, but that doesn't make everything he says a lie.

 

Your first graph of the Holecene period doesn't even show the recent trend in temperature, it stops at around 1700 on our timescale, at the point of the little ice age. The scale is too small to show the recent rise.

 

The other graphs show a cooling trend over millions of years. We know full well how small fluctuations in temperature can bring about ice ages or draughts, so if your argument is to say it's ok because millions of years ago (when the continents were joined at the hip) things were much warmer, then you're sadly missing the point that we didn't exist then and probably wouldn't have survived. Look up Pangaea and it's affect on the global climate millions of years ago.

 

If you add in the last 300 years coinciding with our industrial development (strange how you left that part out) you get something like:

 

http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/693..._Comparison.png

 

Unfortunately this misses out the slow rising Holocene period from 6000 years ago.

 

So far in the past 18,000 years, the earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and the sea level has risen 300 feet. You're right that it was about as warm as it is now 6,000 years ago, but you have to ask yourself if it's natural for the Earth to be at this temperature now. If the Earth becomes any warmer the sea level will rise even more, we may provoke another ice age in the process, and storms will become more severe.

 

It's proven that high CO2 correlates with high temperatures so the data tells us that by putting more CO2 into the air we will affect the global temperature. This strongly suggests the recent warming trend is unnatural. And even if there is a natural component to it, there has to also be an unnatural component.

 

The Earth will survive, as we know it has in the past, but will we?

[NBVegita]

For the first graph I posted the wrong graph, I have a similar graph on my work computer showing through 2002, thank you for pointing out that error.

 

Now I ask you to research just how much CO2 human induce into the atmosphere. Humans contribute 6 billion tons of CO2 to the "greenhouse effect". Nature contributes 189 billion tons. We only contribute just over 3% of the CO2 in the greenhouse effect.

 

And throughout nature temperature and CO2 correspond. If there is high temperature, there is high CO2 levels. This is directly proportionate and has been proven through ice core samples.

 

And my graphs go to show that there have been drastic temperature changes millions of years ago, many similar to the changes we have now, as shown in global3. Millions of years before the industrial revolution.

 

What also isn't accounted for in the studies is that we have destroyed billions of trees in the span of the industrial revolution. Now there is less absorption by natural means of CO2. That is a direct human problem.

 

As for the water level raising, we have had little to no effect over that over the past 18000 years.

 

I am not denying global warming. It is happening, and I am !@#$%^&*ured we will be in an ice age before we have to worry about the weather being too hot. I argue the extent of anthropogenic causes today. I support helping lower emissions. I support preserving the forests. I do not support the idea that the only reason why the climate is drastically raising is because of humans, when in fact there have been many significant changes similar or greater than this in the history of our planet. The inducing of 3% more CO2, which of course did not start that way, it was much less, over the last century could not cause the drastic increase we are seeing now. The ocean ridges have shifted and moved the current towards Antarctica. With warmer water flowing the ice melts faster. With less ice that helps global warming. There are the astrological cycles and much much more.

 

I am not saying that humans have not played a part, a small part on a grand scale, but I refuse to stand by as scientists begging for grant money claim that the only reason the climate is changing so drastically is because of humans.

 

I would post more about the degree of global warming and the other greenhouse gases but no one would really want to read a 10 page long forum post.

Edited April 7, 2007 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

You said yourself that these changes happen over thousands of years and i agree with you. That 3% increase to CO2 levels has happened over a very short space of time in comparison. It may have taken many thousands of years for the CO2 levels to rise naturally by 3%. We have experienced a sudden jump in temperature coinciding with our sudden introduction of this extra 3%. If it were 10% the temperature would have risen even more. What i'm trying to say is it's not the temperature that's worrying right now, it's the temperature gradient (the rate of change). This rather rapid increase in temperature has coincided with a rapid increase in CO2 levels and whether or not this temperature is currently dangerous we are changing our climate in ways that may be difficult to predict.

 

The reason the rate is important is that a sudden influx of fresh water could disrupt the North Atlantic currents bringing about an ice-age. A slower change might prevent it somewhat or lessen it's effects.

 

As for the water level raising, we have had little to no effect over that over the past 18000 years.

In my last post i told you it had risen 300 feet over that time... and that is something i got from the same website i think you were using (i saw all your graphs on there). Most of this rise was before 6000 years ago. It would take 1% of that 300 feet to flood many populated areas... so think about what a 3% rise in CO2 might do.

[NBVegita]

A 3% raise in CO2 is fairly minimal. The biggest contributing factor is that along with the raise of 3%, we have destroyed billions of sources to convert that CO2. But it is still a fairly small amount, specially being 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water, 75% water vapor, 20% clouds. The rest comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." Extreme global warming advocates claim that we cause up to 25 % of these miscellaneous gases. Even on an extreme we are only a cause for 2.5% of the greenhouse effect.

 

So statistically if the greenhouse effect raises temperature by 1C over a period of time, the inducing of humans increase it to 1.025C over said period of time.

 

The problem is that climate and statistics do not always go hand in hand. One scientist I've researched created a model with a 98% accuracy, and it indicates a ridiculous result, that not many climatologist on either side will uphold. Climatology is not math, so statistics don't often hold absolute meaning.

 

Ultimately we cannot predict our climate. We can argue back and forth all day with statistics, and we could both wake up tomorrow and be completely wrong.

Edited April 8, 2007 by NBVegita

[AstroProdigy]

What's being argued here isn't what nature is doing on it's own it's what we're doing to nature. If nature is naturally warming, then humans accelerating the warming would make things even worse. If humanity was negating a cooling effect that'd be fine, but it's like a car driving 20 miles an hour towards a brick wall and then accelerating it to 60 miles an hour. You might be fine after hitting the wall at 20 miles an hour, but 60 miles is deadly. The fact that we're releasing more CO2 and at the same time getting rid of the trees that absorb CO2 is taking us towards a point where new sources of CO2 will suddenly be released and the trend will support itself until we get quite a bit hotter planet. Sever's graph shows that if it's not our fault that there's suddenly a big increase in temperatures then it must be little green aliens, because the earth does not produce such results without outside intervention.

 

The fact is if there's a 90% chance that we're screwing ourselves as the vast majority of climatologists say then we're being insane to not do anything. Even a 10% chance of us causing a catastrophy on ourselves is enough reason to warrant action.

[NBVegita]

And my graphs show that the earth has gone through such drastic changes before. Without human intervention. And your example is an extreme. With your example, we would be tripling the global warming factor.

 

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

 

From the US Department of energy. Good site on calculating the global warming factor.

 

And more information as to just how much of global warming humans cause.

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

This is not the first site, and check the references at the bottom, you can find all of the information they used themselves, to prove that humans contribute .28% to the greenhouse effect.

 

From my data it is shown that we have a very small effect over the climate, and ultimately things should be done to lower emissions and save trees as any little bit helps, but we have other causes that could use the billions, that I fear, will be allocated to fix a problem we have minimal control over.

Edited April 8, 2007 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

A 3% raise in CO2 is fairly minimal. The biggest contributing factor is that along with the raise of 3%, we have destroyed billions of sources to convert that CO2. But it is still a fairly small amount, specially being 90% of the greenhouse effect is from water, 70% water vapor, 20% clouds. The rest comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." Extreme global warming advocates claim that we cause up to 25 % of these miscellaneous gases. Even on an extreme we are only a cause for 2.5% of the greenhouse effect.

Being an astrophysicist i can tell you that without the greenhouse effect we'd all be dead right now. That 70% from water and 20% from clouds are necessary for us to not all freeze to death. If you say that 97% compared to 3% means we're not to blame then you're missing the point that 97% means the difference between living in a frozen wasteland or living in paradise. So 97% may equal 60 degrees, 3% may equal 2 degrees, but without the natural greenhouse effect we can't survive. What's important is how we're changing our environment in ways that make it difficult to adapt.

 

The Earth was relatively stable without our influence, with changes happening over thousands or millions of years. Any life would be able to adapt to the trend. We may not be able to adapt to a sudden ice age or regular Katrina size hurricanes and tsunamis.

 

Think about it, if the temperature suddenly jumped to what it was in the cretaceous period in the space of 50 years then would you say it's natural if our greenhouse effect was still 90% natural? Would you then say that the Earth was this way 65 million years ago, so it must be natural now?

 

Back on topic: Obama not having experience isn't a problem, you can't compare him to Bush in that respect. Obama is a self-made man, Bush was s!@#$%^&*-fed.

Edited April 8, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

Read my second link in my last post. We only contribute .28% to the greenhouse effect. And I never said that vapor and clouds don't keep us alive, the natural planetary temperature would be -33C, some say only -16C without clouds and vapor.

 

And remember your history about the dinosaurs? They did not become extinct over thousands or millions of years. There was an extreme warming to unheard of temperatures, and then the earth plunged into an ice age. If you investigate all of the ice ages, there is always a drastic increase in temperature, and then an even more drastic decrease. When mount Krakatoa erupted in 1883 the average global temperatures by 1C-5C. That year was termed the year without summer as it snowed in New England in July. This did not balance out until 1888. Our climate has often had dramatic changes, without any human influence.

 

And the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, one of the most credited sources in the world, states that between 1990 and 2100 the planet could increase its temperature by .6C-2.5C. This takes into effect the natural climate change coupled with the greenhouse effect. Now as I've shown that we only have a .28% influence on the greenhouse effect, that means we would be responsible for .00168C-.007C over the next century. Even on the extremist end where they claim we're responsible for 25% of the non-water greenhouse effect, which being proven that we only produce ~3% of the CO2 in these greenhouse gases, and CO2 cons!@#$%^&*utes ~73% of the remaining greenhouse effect, which proves that 25% wrong, we would still only be responsible for .015C-.0625C

 

And mind you those number are !@#$%^&*uming that the .6C-2.5C is coming strictly from the greenhouse effect. So if you include ocean currents melting the ice caps, and the rotation of the planet, among a few things, it would be even lower.

 

Yes I don't think Obama will have the experience problem. In fact I wouldn't mind having the man in office.

Edited April 8, 2007 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

The point isn't to compare the natural to the unnatural greenhouse gases. Its completely irrelevent as until the last 300 years the natural contribution was 100%. We have added an extra 3% to that value resulting in the sharp rise in global temperatures over this time. The temperature as it is now has not been seen in 6,000 years and the rate at which we got to this temperature has never been seen before. All projections say that the temperature will continue to rise past the Holocene maximum. It doesn't matter what the temperature is now, and it doesn't matter that greenhouse gases are primarily from natural sources. We've always had those natural sources and we've developed to depend on them. What we haven't developed to depend on is the introduction of this extra temperature over such a short space of time.

 

Look, imagine a world with 100% natural greenhouse gases and a temperature of 15 degrees C. Then you add 3% more greenhouse gases and the temperature rises to 17 degrees C. It's competely illogical to blame that 2 degree rise in temperature as being 97% natural! That seems to be what you're trying to p!@#$%^&* off as truth here.

 

We don't know how the dinosaurs became extinct.

Krakatoa was an isolated incident with global consequences, it was not a global phenomenon. The temperature returned to normal levels after the dust dissipated and settled. I really don't see how it has any relevence. We couldn't avoid Krakatoa and we can avoid global warming, so what's you point?

Edited April 8, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

We only account for in actuality .28% of greenhouse gases.

 

95% is water, which scientists agree that at most we have a .0001% influence over, most say we have no influence over.

 

Of the remaining 5%, 72.369% is CO2 for which we account for .117%

7.199% is CH4 which we account for .066%

19.000% is N2O which we account for .047%

1.432% is other gases which we account for .047%

 

These numbers are our total contribution to the greenhouse effect.

 

now apply that .28% to your numbers and see how trivial the result is.

[SeVeR]

The whole point is that no amount, however small, is not trivial when the natural greenhouse gases do not increase as rapidly. Edited April 8, 2007 by SeVeR

[AstroProdigy]

Water largely has a cooling effect on the earth so what we're considering here is the percentage of warming effect increase not the raw sources. The fact is we contribute .28% of the actual gases, but the warming we contribute is 3% which is 2 degrees celsius and will be another 4 degrees celsius over this century, which will increase droughts in hot areas, melt ever increasing sources of ice, flood our coasts, and who knows what else. Preventing the loss of homes for the massive coastal populations is PLENTY of reason to stop it, not to mention the effect of massive refugee populations would have on their surroundings. I don't know about you, but India, for example, does not have the capacity to take in over 200 million Bengalis in their already overcrowded country just because corporations want to make more money. If the death of poor non white people isn't enough reason for our white dominated world to stop, the Netherlands is also utterly screwed if we don't stop our irresponsible actions. What we're facing if we don't stop is at the very least the collapse of scores of coastal countries and massive chaos and death worldwide. Edited April 10, 2007 by PoLiX

[SeVeR]

Water traps heat quite well actually. Exchanging the polar ice caps for more water isn't going to help for two reasons: firstly ice is reflective of the suns rays and increases our albedo, without it we absorb more radiation and heat up, secondly water vapour is an effective greenhouse gas. Maybe you're thinking about how land compares to water in their reflective properties but we'd have to flood alot of land to make up for the added greenhouse effect from the extra water vapour in the air. This is of course all in addition to the extra CO2 in the air.

[AstroProdigy]

Water does trap heat, but it also reflects it to a large degree. That's why the death of the Dinosaurs was actually because clouds of dust blocked out the sun and cooled the earth, not simply because of the asteroid impact. What I'm referring to is all the cloud cover that reflects sunlight back into space. That's why particles that can form clouds both heat and cool and at least partially cancel out their effect on heating. My point is that CO2 basically only absorbs heat and combined with the more effective methane and other material we release into the atmosphere they have a massively more efficient effect than the water vapor that is 95% of the aerosols. THEREFORE, although at first it seems we aren't releasing much into the atmosphere if you look at it in terms of how much we are warming the earth with the greenhouse gases we release compared to how much the natural greenhouse gases are heating the earth we are having a 3% effect and that is exactly what climateologists say it is. I'm making the same point you are, but in a different way. ;-)

 

I hope Edwards wins the Democratic nomination I like his policies. He should have beaten Kerry in the primaries and ran against Bush; then we would have been spared the extra 4 years of !@#$%^&*bag and along with it the extra disgust the world has with us.

Edited April 9, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

I don't see your 3% effect. I'd like to see your resources that 5% of other gases makes up for 95% of water vapor, because I've read a lot of studies from both sides of the line and I'm yet to find one that shows that the ~3.6% of CO2 in global warming accounts for more than the 95% of water vapor, or anything of the sort.

 

And whats even more is that I'd like to see how .28% turns into 3%. That would mean you would have to show that these other gases have 11 times the global warming factor over water vapor.

 

As for the dinosaurs, there was incredible volcanic activity which released CO2, dust and ash in massive amounts into the atmosphere. The dinosaurs then promptly fell into an ice age. And it wasn't because it was just cloudy or a little dusty.

 

And sever, as I've stated before it's not that I don't think anything should be done. I think we should preserve trees, and work to repair those areas we destroyed by even say creating national parks where in a century from now our grandchildren will reap the benefits of those trees. And expending SOME resourses to lower emissions, but as things like this always do, there are going to be a lot of scientists getting a lot of grant money, which is already happening, and there will be billions of dollars spent to fight a battle against our climate which is mostly natural. When there are a LOT more issue going on which that money would be able to help out that will see little to no aid because of incomplete data.

 

There is a reason why Al Gore has refused every person who has challenged him, over the past year and a half, about global warming. We are moving towards an ice age, and there will be nothing we can do about it. Man often overestimates his control over mother nature.

[SeVeR]

I don't see how you can say it's "mostly natural" when the rate of change is wholly unnatural. The natural contribution to our current greenhouse effect may be 97% or 99.7% , but whatever amount that is, it's not changing at a rate to produce our rate of climate change. To explain the current rate of climate change it's completely irrelevent to quote a figure for natural greenhouse gases that doesn't change. The variable that is changing is our unnatural contribution. You're defaming science to say a near constant quani!@#$%^&*y (on this timescale) is responsible for such a sharp rise in temperature, especially when there is a much more obvious candidate for the recent trend.

 

Comparitively, if an ion drive propels a rocket to a velocity of 0.45c and maintains that constant speed, and then the chemical rockets are fired adding a further 0.05c: you're effectively blaming the extra 0.05c almost squarely on the ion drive by saying its 90% to blame. Change effects further change, constants don't. Going back to original point, on the timescale of our temperature increase, the natural greenhouse gas contribution is effectively a constant.

[NBVegita]

No if you check our natural greenhouse gases are directly proportional to the increase and decrease in temperature. Ice cores have proven that. The problem with your post is that you can have your ion drive maintain a constant speed. Climate is forever changing. The climate is constantly getting warmer and colder at varying rates of acceleration. My arguement is not that we have had no effect on the climate, it is that statistically, our climate temperature has been increasing at varying degrees since the 1600's, and that the .28% influence to the greenhouse effect by anthropogenic means is not enough to cause a major change in the climate. Also my statistics show that previously our climate has gone through similar, and even more severe climate temperature changes.

 

What, just because we haven't had such a serious climate change for a few milleniums it must be that our .28% is causing all of it? Or most of it? How do you explain the extreme changes in temperature, the phasing in and out of ice ages, if the natural greenhouse contribution is effectively a constant?

[SeVeR]

No if you check our natural greenhouse gases are directly proportional to the increase and decrease in temperature. Ice cores have proven that.

Yes they are directly proportional, so if the natural greenhouse gas levels are not changing then neither should the temperature.

 

The problem with your post is that you can have your ion drive maintain a constant speed. Climate is forever changing.

The climate is changing at a rate that is inconsistent with the near constant level of natural greenhouse gases. There must be another contributer to effect such a change.

 

our climate temperature has been increasing at varying degrees since the 1600's

But never at the rate we are seeing now.

 

and that the .28% influence to the greenhouse effect by anthropogenic means is not enough to cause a major change in the climate.

You said yourself that without our natural greenhoue gases we'd be about 60 degrees colder than we are now. So a small increase in greenhouse gases will have a noticeable effect on temperature.

 

How do you explain the extreme changes in temperature, the phasing in and out of ice ages, if the natural greenhouse contribution is effectively a constant?

Over the timescale of our recent changes it's effectively constant. Over millions of years it's not.

[NBVegita]

I'm on lunch so I'll take only your first point until I get back to work,

 

"Yes they are directly proportional, so if the natural greenhouse gas levels are not changing then neither should the temperature."

 

The natural greenhouse gas levels are constantly changing. As I've stated in my last post, simply because we haven't seen such drastic changes in a few millennium does not mean that they are not natural. And even say 300 million years ago, the change were just as drastic, or even more severe, with no notable inducement to increase the natural green house gases.

 

And nature is very good at balancing out that small amount that we induce. Notice with Mt. Krakatoa, just in sulfur dioxide, it released over 8 metric tons into the atmosphere, and after 5 years all was back to normal.

[NBVegita]

As for the level of green house gases: since the 1700's, right as we started warming up, CO2 in the atmosphere has raised over 34%. Unless you're planning on blaming it on an influx of bean sales.

 

And how do you come to the conlusion that because something warms the earth by 60C that adjusting it by .28% will have a fairly noticable effect? Following your theory, you raise the temperature by 3% you get 62C, so if you raised it by 50% the temperature would become 90C. so if you raise it by 00.28% it would mean as of today we have effected the global temperature by .168C or for the americans it adds .3024F. So instead of it being 80F out one day, because of us it is .3024F. !@#$%^&* us to !@#$%^&* we've ruined the planet.

Edited April 9, 2007 by NBVegita

[jacob hunter!]

Al gore should jump in this conver.

[NBVegita]

lol he'd refuse, he's refused every head to head debate offered to him in the past year and a half on the subject.

[SeVeR]

As for the level of green house gases: since the 1700's, right as we started warming up, CO2 in the atmosphere has raised over 34%. Unless you're planning on blaming it on an influx of bean sales.

So atmospheric CO2 has risen 34% since the industrial revolution started and you're telling me that less than 1% (0.28/0.34) of that is from unnatural sources? If thats true then you've won this argument fair and square - present your sources please, as i've taken your word for it so far.

 

34% extra CO2 over 300 years, that just happens to coincide with the industrialisation of humanity... it just seems obvious to me what the cause is.

 

The natural greenhouse gas levels are constantly changing. As I've stated in my last post, simply because we haven't seen such drastic changes in a few millennium does not mean that they are not natural. And even say 300 million years ago, the change were just as drastic, or even more severe, with no notable inducement to increase the natural green house gases.

The thing about scientific records is they get less accurate the further back you go... and the thing about 300 million years ago is the Earth was alot hotter back then and more drastic variations in temperature can be expected. Lastly we don't know the cause of this drastic change, it could have been an asteroid impact, or a freakishly high amount of solar activity. We can't just sit here and say the world went to !@#$%^&* 300 million years ago so its ok if it happens now.

 

Notice with Mt. Krakatoa, just in sulfur dioxide, it released over 8 metric tons into the atmosphere, and after 5 years all was back to normal.

I'm sure the world produces many times that every year, it just gets diluted as its over a large time scale. If we released our annual pollution into the atmosphere in one explosive event we'd probably all be dead in a couple of weeks.

 

Following your theory, you raise the temperature by 3% you get 62C, so if you raised it by 50% the temperature would become 90C. so if you raise it by 00.28% it would mean as of today we have effected the global temperature by .168C or for the americans it adds .3024F. So instead of it being 80F out one day, because of us it is .3024F. !@#$%^&* us to !@#$%^&* we've ruined the planet.

Lol, that wasn't a "theory", it was an example with values i just made up. The values weren't important, the point of the statement was.