An Inconvenient Truth

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Deviations from a mean - duh...

What's the mean? How was the mean determined?

Info like that is ... kind of important ... duh!

Not really - you can also just replace the deviation numbers with the absolute temperature readings, and it wouldn't be any different. Within the time range of that graph, the global temperature average has risen about 0.7 degrees C.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Deviations from a mean - duh...

What's the mean? How was the mean determined?

Info like that is ... kind of important ... duh!

Yes my response was a joke. Someone else already responded.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Uh, did you read the report?


...Basically, the paper is a great debate. Now, if science is to take place, the original team for the paper must now defend its work. Not by shouting down the opposition as the climatenow website is doing, but by reproducing their original work using different data, which must then undergo peer review. Or, they can argue how the new study that questions their results is in fact incorrect.

No, I didn't read the report because the blog post was offered in respect to the conversation about Mars, which is what I was talking about too, not the stuff that the report is based on.

If you want to see science taking place, here are the RealClimate pages on the 'hockey stick graph':

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

SFL Cat, you can see that from about 1940 to 1975 the temperature was overall down, but can you explain to me the overall trend of the curve over the past hundred or so years?

If the temperature anamoly is supposed to represent some sort of mean, it actually shows that we were in an abnormally long period of cooler temperatures that have just now moved above normal over the last few years.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I do. There is so much money tied into gasoline and the products that use gasoline that those industries have huge economic incentives to keep alternatives from reaching the market. Check out the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" as an example. It's a biased source, but there is a lot of truth there as well.

You honestly believe there are oil thugs out there stifling scientific research? I thought the majority of these eggheads were tree-huggers and would post this shit on the internet and not let it be stuffed under-the-rug by evil big oil. How is it that fuel cell technology wasn't wiped out before it started? Fuel cell technology will wipe out the oil industry when they are perfected.

My own opinion is that gasoline is just so damned good at what it does that it is going to be hard to replace. And yes, the fact that we are a society that has gas pumps every 20 feet is a factor in that. All this bullshit about the oil industry buying and burying technology that makes cars get 100 mpg or crap like that is bunk. If you believe that I have a flying saucer I'd like to sell you.

Also, most people don't know it but one of the original concepts for the horseless buggy was an electric engine but gasoline engines were just so much better that they became the dominant engine (and this was way before oil companies killed people for inventing stuff that is anti-gasoline). Had the industry stuck with electric, I'm sure that our battery technology would be vastly ahead of where it is now, but in those days they would've had to of charged them by plugging them into a socket that got it's energy from a fossil fuel burning power plant. Not much better than car exhaust.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If the temperature anamoly is supposed to represent some sort of mean, it actually shows that we were in an abnormally long period of cooler temperatures that have just now moved above normal over the last few years.

As I mentioned a few posts up, the mean is the average temp from 1961 to 1990, which is apparently the standard convention of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The bigger picture here is to note that scientists were concerned about how greenhouse gases were impacting our atmosphere and thus our climate.

So yeah - back in the mid 1970's the scientific community wasn't in a near consensus about the phenomenon of global warming, but then again, that was 30 years ago and global scientific knowledge has advanced a great deal in that span of time.

No, the bigger picture is to realize that scientists came to one conclusion then, are coming to another one now, and will likely come to a different one in 2035. We are not so full of hubris as to think that scientific research in 2007 is at at the peak of what it will ever be, are we?

So the climatologists now are predicting global warming...does that mean it's actually going to happen? Maybe...maybe not. Should we be concerned about alternate fuel sources? Probably. Should people run around declaring that the world is going to be doomed unless we find and utilize those sources right this instant? Probably not.

Honestly, I don't care what one scientist says and what another says to refute the first one. Despite declaring a study as evidence, scientific predictions aren't proof that anything is going to happen. They're just possible outcomes relating to the environments, actions and influences of what they have been studying. Maybe something is going to happen and maybe it's not. Is it worth four pages of arguing on a football message board?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

"Following the common practice of the IPCC, the zero on this figure is the mean temperature from 1961-1990." And then the plus and minus is the divergence from the mean for each year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

Based on that graph, I'd say we need to go back to using leaded gasoline and burning our leaves in the fall. It's gotten warmer since we've stopped.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

SFL Cat, you can see that from about 1940 to 1975 the temperature was overall down, but can you explain to me the overall trend of the curve over the past hundred or so years?

Given this chart, how did the scientists in the 70's think we were going into an Ice Age?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Yes my response was a joke. Someone else already responded.

Apologies then.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

No, I didn't read the report because the blog post was offered in respect to the conversation about Mars, which is what I was talking about too, not the stuff that the report is based on.

If you want to see science taking place, here are the RealClimate pages on the 'hockey stick graph':

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

Read the other article. Neither of these really refute the objections the other article raises.

They point out that other studies show the same hockey stick, but the other article covers that. Much of it is due to the data that they are pulling from. Also, some of the data is "proxy". It is also important to see that Mann and co. at realclimate have changed their tune regarding their claim about global temperatures over the last thousand years.

I will say this though, their tone is extremely defensive and doesn't really outline things like the other article does. They explain some things, but they haven't delved into their methodology which is key to the debate raised by the other side.

Hell, we all know how important methodology is, just look at OJ.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

You honestly believe there are oil thugs out there stifling scientific research? I thought the majority of these eggheads were tree-huggers and would post this shit on the internet and not let it be stuffed under-the-rug by evil big oil. How is it that fuel cell technology wasn't wiped out before it started? Fuel cell technology will wipe out the oil industry when they are perfected.

I never claimed they were preventing research from happening. What they can do (and have done) though is use their economic might to hinder the practical business application of competing technologies.

All this bullshit about the oil industry buying and burying technology that makes cars get 100 mpg or crap like that is bunk. If you believe that I have a flying saucer I'd like to sell you.

The automotive industry played a sizeable role in killing the movement in California promoting electric cars, and the automotive industry in this country has been fighting every inch of the way higher fuel economy standards, such that the U.S. is vastly behind every other major country in this measure.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

As I mentioned a few posts up, the mean is the average temp from 1961 to 1990, which is apparently the standard convention of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

How did they determine that to be the mean?

For example, look at what the board that determined water useage in the Colorado Watershed, they based the water useage on what happened in the early 20s and 30s. Later, it was discovered that those years were some of the wettest on record, and now you have a water crisis in the American West and the Colorado River sometimes does not even reach the Gulf of California because of all the water taken out of it.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How did they determine that to be the mean?

For example, look at what the board that determined water useage in the Colorado Watershed, they based the water useage on what happened in the early 20s and 30s. Later, it was discovered that those years were some of the wettest on record, and now you have a water crisis in the American West and the Colorado River sometimes does not even reach the Gulf of California because of all the water taken out of it.

If we based the mean on temps from 2000-2006, we'd be saying "Thank God, we're finally coming out of the cold snap and getting back to normal."

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by VPI97

No, the bigger picture is to realize that scientists came to one conclusion then, are coming to another one now, and will likely come to a different one in 2035. We are not so full of hubris as to think that scientific research in 2007 is at at the peak of what it will ever be, are we?

Not at all. But to denounce the current scientific consensus on global warming and man's role in it simply because 30 years ago there wasn't the same consensus is silly.

So the climatologists now are predicting global warming...does that mean it's actually going to happen? Maybe...maybe not. Should we be concerned about alternate fuel sources? Probably. Should people run around declaring that the world is going to be doomed unless we find and utilize those sources right this instant? Probably not.

They're not "predicting" global warming - they're documenting the global warming that is happening and the effects of that warming. They are doing what they can to estimate what impacts we can expect to see if the current warming trend continues, and while their models are nowhere near perfect, they're a lot better than they were 30 years ago. And they are investigating the links between human activity and the global warming that is happening.

Honestly, I don't care what one scientist says and what another says to refute the first one. Despite declaring a study as evidence, scientific predictions aren't proof that anything is going to happen. They're just possible outcomes relating to the environments, actions and influences of what they have been studying. Maybe something is going to happen and maybe it's not. Is it worth four pages of arguing on a football message board?

Predictions are admittedly difficult regarding this subject, because you're talking about an incredibly complex phenomenon (climate). But that doesn't mean that their predictions are worthless - scientists can look at past events in the Earth's history and note the scale, severity and rapidity of past climate changes and events and extrapolate what similar events would do to our present situation.

As an example, global warming doesn't cause more hurricanes, but it does increase the severity of those hurricanes, since hurricane strength is derived from water temperature; warmer waters = more powerful hurricanes.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

If we based the mean on temps from 2000-2006, we'd be saying "Thank God, we're finally coming out of the cold snap and getting back to normal."

Except we have temperature evidence dating much further back then that, so basing anything off that short time frame would be idiotic.

[sachmo71]

Alternate fuels, clean or dirty, will need to be a reality within the next century. Maybe longer if demand goes down.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by VPI97

No, the bigger picture is to realize that scientists came to one conclusion then, are coming to another one now, and will likely come to a different one in 2035. We are not so full of hubris as to think that scientific research in 2007 is at at the peak of what it will ever be, are we?

So the climatologists now are predicting global warming...does that mean it's actually going to happen? Maybe...maybe not. Should we be concerned about alternate fuel sources? Probably. Should people run around declaring that the world is going to be doomed unless we find and utilize those sources right this instant? Probably not.

You ignore the majority opinion, which is that global warming can be mitigated for a cost as small as 0.3% of GDP. Nobody is saying that we have to stop all fossil fuel burning now and live in caves, just that we should take reasonable steps to avoid what the best science at the time says is a likely occurence.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How did they determine that to be the mean?

For example, look at what the board that determined water useage in the Colorado Watershed, they based the water useage on what happened in the early 20s and 30s. Later, it was discovered that those years were some of the wettest on record, and now you have a water crisis in the American West and the Colorado River sometimes does not even reach the Gulf of California because of all the water taken out of it.

That mean is just used as a common reference point. You can change it to absolute K and the data would look the same.

Here is the issue. When, in a lab, you increase CO2 levels in an environment meant to simulate Earth's, the temperature goes up. We have increased levels of CO2 due to our pollution. Our temperatures have been going up steadily correlating with CO2 production. Therefore, at least part of the warming is due to our activity. To deny that humans at least party contribute to global warming you have to say that either we haven't been producing more CO2, that the temperature really isn't going up, or that the properties of CO2 change when not in the lab.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You can change it to absolute K and the data would look the same.

Well, not exactly...



hxxp://www.junkscience.com/GMT/compareNCDC.html

[BigPapi]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

From Wikipedia

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness about carbon dioxide's effects: at the time garbage, chemical disposal, smog, particulate pollution, and acid rain were the focus of public concern, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.[2] Not long after the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend stopped going down. Even by the early 1970s, there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects,[3] and it was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.

Environmental messages included smog levels, reports of smoke sources and effects, public service messages against littering and poison disposal, and reports of trees damaged by acid rain. Many people had backyard trash burning barrels, and concerns began about the amount of smoke from burning leaves in the fall. Many places instituted burning restrictions in the late 1960s.[4][5]
Currently, there are some concerns about the possible cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of the thermohaline circulation, which might be provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. The probability of this occurring is generally considered to be low, and the IPCC notes, "However, even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe. For example, in all AOGCM integrations where the radiative forcing is increasing, the sign of the temperature change over north-west Europe is positive."[6] The ceasing of thermohaline circulation in the world's oceans caused the rapid global cooling in the scientifically inaccurate film The Day After Tomorrow.

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Big article on this in Newsweek in the mid-70's:

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

That mean is just used as a common reference point. You can change it to absolute K and the data would look the same.

Here is the issue. When, in a lab, you increase CO2 levels in an environment meant to simulate Earth's, the temperature goes up. We have increased levels of CO2 due to our pollution. Our temperatures have been going up steadily correlating with CO2 production. Therefore, at least part of the warming is due to our activity. To deny that humans at least party contribute to global warming you have to say that either we haven't been producing more CO2, that the temperature really isn't going up, or that the properties of CO2 change when not in the lab.

You're changing arguments here, slightly but you are.

First, the reference point is very important. If you set it too low, you can make anything look like it is abnormally high. On the flip side, if you set it too high, you wind up with a situation like we have with the Colorado Watershed which I touched on previously.

With your second paragraph, that is a very simplistic view. I understand what the global warming is due to humans side of the equation is. I think that assessment places way too much power on us. By that reasoning, from the moment fire was invented, we were having an impact on the environment.

Oh no! The guy from the GEICO commericals is responsible for global warming!

Wait a minute, we produce CO2 through respiration, to save the environment we must eliminate every animal alive. It's the only way to be sure the environment survives!

OK, enough of the smart ass comments. I maintain that we do not know enough to know whether or not the earth is warming on a long term basis. Look at the graph you posted. The only period that is above the mean is a brief period in the 40s, and the last 15 or so years. So that means, out of the time frame on the graph, 80% of the time, the global climate was below normal. So, we can either be coming out of a mini-ice age, or it could be that our basis is off.

Heck, there was a 60 year trend there, where the global temp, was .4 deg. C below the basis. If we were living back then, we'd be talking about the impending ice age. Now, to turn your position on its head, during the 1800s, we were producing more CO2 than we were previously, due to the industrial revolution. If that was the case, why was the global temperature so low? If it was linked solely to CO2, global temperatures should have been up. They certainly should have been higher than what they were over the previous 1000 years.

What is to say, that we aren't entering a period of stability with temperatures roughly .4 deg. C above the basis?

Now, based upon your assertion at the end of your post, we can rule option #1 out. The question instead rests on the second two assertions which can be debated. Is the earth actually warming? Past the 1920s, we don't have reliable data from sources, plus, from the 1920s on, you could argue that heat islands would have a large impact on any temperature measurements due population pressures. But, do these heat islands impact the rest of the environment? Unfortunately, we won't know the answer to that because we have very little data from which to draw from because records aren't accurate records weren't being kept in the middle of nowhere.

We could look at tree core samples, but there are issues there. As fire, precipitation, temperature, competition with other trees, etc., all impact the amount a tree grows in a year. The question is, how do we eliminate the other factors and just focus on the temperature part of the equation? How do we know if it was hot and dry, or hot and wet?

Yet, much of the background data for the research to show that we are at abnormally high levels rests upon data such as this. Ice cores can prove things one way or another, but the problem with them is that they are localized and only shows what happens to the polar climes. They do not necessarily apply to what was happening elsewhere on the globe.

So, for your second assertion, it can be debated whether or not the earth is hotter than ever before. We can argue warmer, but if it is warmer than the previous cycle, but it isn't warmer than the 1500s for example, the position that human produced CO2 levels are causing it, doesn't hold much weight. Because, as you would be quick to point out, we are producing more CO2 than at anytime previously in human history.

That leaves your third assertion. Properties of CO2 change when not in the lab. CO2 is CO2, I won't argue that. But, do the laboratories actually recreate the environment? That is the crux. Look at how much ozone we produce as a society. Yet, 20 years ago, we had a hole in the ozone layer. Why did that happen? Simple, the ozone that we released reacted with other molecules in the air and produced other compounds. The result was that ozone that we produced was not reaching the ozone layer.

Could other things be happening with CO2? Is CO2, the main contributor to global warming? Actually it is not. Water Vapor is the primary factor in the greenhouse effect. But (from wikipedia), "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) IPCC Third Assessment Report chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans.[9][10][11]" (So, let me get this straight. Man can't affect water vapor, so we shouldn't classify it as a greenhouse gas.)

The other item, we have been basing our information about the CO2 levels in the atmosphere based upon ice cores. Yet, if we look at the pictures at the bottom of the wiki site showing carbon monoxide levels (which eventually converts to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) you will see that there is a lot of fluctuations in the southern hemisphere, but the northern hemisphere is more constant. Could that have an effect on the ice cores that we are basing our whole premise on?

Also, what about the impact of other gases on the atmosphere? Carbon dioxide is that basis by which other gases are measured, and we can see that there are other manmade molecules that are far worse than CO2.

To sum up, there are too many atmospheric variables to me, to single out one as the sole culprit of everything going on. I also find it telling that the leading proponent of global warming, Mr. Mann, wants to essentially remove water vapor as a greenhouse gas, because it is misleading and humans can't control it. WHAT?!?!?!?

So I leave you, as I am going to have my cake, and eat it too!

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Water Vapor is the primary factor in the greenhouse effect.

Well, dammmmn. So much for the hydrogen car. It produces water vapor as exhaust.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

SFL Cat, you can see that from about 1940 to 1975 the temperature was overall down, but can you explain to me the overall trend of the curve over the past hundred or so years?

Is it just me, or who gives a shit about a change of less than a degree?

[st.cronin]

I blame global warming on the jews.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Is it just me, or who gives a shit about a change of less than a degree?

Another common problem with the global warming issue - many folks severely underestimate the effect of small temperature changes. Already, with "just" a gain of around 0.7 degrees C in the last 50+ years, glaciers are rapidly retreating around the world, snow packs on mountains are regressing (Mt. Kilimanjaro will likely soon be without any snow), large chunks of ice are breaking off the polar ice sheets, etc.

My point being, it doesn't take much change in overall global temperatures to have significant effects on our world.

[Tigercat]

I have some very intelligent and connected science friends. So I offer up this rarely publicly talked about problem with CO2 and global warming:

Even if we kill nearly all of our CO2 emissions(ha!), our methane levels would still accumulate at levels that are dangerously high. Methane absorbs something like 20-30x more heat than carbon dioxide. Why methane you ask? Well perhaps the biggest offender: rice patties. And boy do us humans love our rice.

Life planets seem to be so fragile, one has to wonder if destroying the atmosphere of one, or coming damn close before advance technology has to begin to kick in, is inevitable for planets with "sentient" life. I figure if we hit fusion within a century and can shut down nearly every other energy process we will be fine. Otherwise moon real estate is sounding nice.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Another common problem with the global warming issue - many folks severely underestimate the effect of small temperature changes. Already, with "just" a gain of around 0.7 degrees C in the last 50+ years, glaciers are rapidly retreating around the world, snow packs on mountains are regressing (Mt. Kilimanjaro will likely soon be without any snow), large chunks of ice are breaking off the polar ice sheets, etc.

My point being, it doesn't take much change in overall global temperatures to have significant effects on our world.

Gotcha. But how much have human beings contributed to this change? .1 degrees? Also, so what? If Kilimanjaro doesn't have any snow does that mean we can't ski there? If large chunks of ice break off how does that affect us?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Gotcha. But how much have human beings contributed to this change? .1 degrees? Also, so what? If Kilimanjaro doesn't have any snow does that mean we can't ski there? If large chunks of ice break off how does that affect us?

There is a significant amount of ice on Greenland and on Antarctica. Ice that melts off of those landmasses into the oceans will raise the water level around the world.

How much are humans responsible for the temperature increase? Depends on who you talk to. Many scientists say that human activity has had a significant impact on the temperature changes in the last century, but there are a vocal minority that question that contention. Many people posting in this thread fall into that camp. I'm not 100% convinced either way on the role of human activity - I need to study the skeptics arguments further. But there isn't any question that temperatures are rising - the questions are how much will they rise and for how long, how rapidly will temperatures rise, and how much effect human activity has on the temperature increase.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Well, not exactly...

hxxp://www.junkscience.com/GMT/compareNCDC.html

Well I thought it went without saying, but apparently not: at the same scale, it would look the same.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Well I thought it went without saying, but apparently not: at the same scale, it would look the same.

Yep, presentation is everything.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

You're changing arguments here, slightly but you are.

First, the reference point is very important. If you set it too low, you can make anything look like it is abnormally high. On the flip side, if you set it too high, you wind up with a situation like we have with the Colorado Watershed which I touched on previously.

With your second paragraph, that is a very simplistic view. I understand what the global warming is due to humans side of the equation is. I think that assessment places way too much power on us. By that reasoning, from the moment fire was invented, we were having an impact on the environment.

Oh no! The guy from the GEICO commericals is responsible for global warming!

Wait a minute, we produce CO2 through respiration, to save the environment we must eliminate every animal alive. It's the only way to be sure the environment survives!

OK, enough of the smart ass comments...

I know that these were just 'smart ass comments', but the argument is akin to arguing that taking anabolic steroids is fine for your body because they occur their naturally. The rub, obviously, is that the body evolved over time to regulate the amount of steroids in the body, and upsetting that balance can have negative consequences.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I maintain that we do not know enough to know whether or not the earth is warming on a long term basis. Look at the graph you posted. The only period that is above the mean is a brief period in the 40s, and the last 15 or so years. So that means, out of the time frame on the graph, 80% of the time, the global climate was below normal. So, we can either be coming out of a mini-ice age, or it could be that our basis is off.

Heck, there was a 60 year trend there, where the global temp, was .4 deg. C below the basis. If we were living back then, we'd be talking about the impending ice age. Now, to turn your position on its head, during the 1800s, we were producing more CO2 than we were previously, due to the industrial revolution. If that was the case, why was the global temperature so low? If it was linked solely to CO2, global temperatures should have been up. They certainly should have been higher than what they were over the previous 1000 years.

The mean temperature is, so about half the graph from 61-90 will be above the mean and half below the mean. The graph in the 1800s is below the mean because the mean is the mean from 61-90 and temperatures have been rising since then. Here are temperatures over the last million years:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Now, based upon your assertion at the end of your post, we can rule option #1 out. The question instead rests on the second two assertions which can be debated. Is the earth actually warming? Past the 1920s, we don't have reliable data from sources, plus, from the 1920s on, you could argue that heat islands would have a large impact on any temperature measurements due population pressures. But, do these heat islands impact the rest of the environment? Unfortunately, we won't know the answer to that because we have very little data from which to draw from because records aren't accurate records weren't being kept in the middle of nowhere.

We could look at tree core samples, but there are issues there. As fire, precipitation, temperature, competition with other trees, etc., all impact the amount a tree grows in a year. The question is, how do we eliminate the other factors and just focus on the temperature part of the equation? How do we know if it was hot and dry, or hot and wet?

Yet, much of the background data for the research to show that we are at abnormally high levels rests upon data such as this. Ice cores can prove things one way or another, but the problem with them is that they are localized and only shows what happens to the polar climes. They do not necessarily apply to what was happening elsewhere on the globe.

So, for your second assertion, it can be debated whether or not the earth is hotter than ever before. We can argue warmer, but if it is warmer than the previous cycle, but it isn't warmer than the 1500s for example, the position that human produced CO2 levels are causing it, doesn't hold much weight. Because, as you would be quick to point out, we are producing more CO2 than at anytime previously in human history.

That leaves your third assertion. Properties of CO2 change when not in the lab. CO2 is CO2, I won't argue that. But, do the laboratories actually recreate the environment? That is the crux. Look at how much ozone we produce as a society. Yet, 20 years ago, we had a hole in the ozone layer. Why did that happen? Simple, the ozone that we released reacted with other molecules in the air and produced other compounds. The result was that ozone that we produced was not reaching the ozone layer.

Could other things be happening with CO2? Is CO2, the main contributor to global warming? Actually it is not. Water Vapor is the primary factor in the greenhouse effect. But (from wikipedia), "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) IPCC Third Assessment Report chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans.[9][10][11]" (So, let me get this straight. Man can't affect water vapor, so we shouldn't classify it as a greenhouse gas.)

The other item, we have been basing our information about the CO2 levels in the atmosphere based upon ice cores. Yet, if we look at the pictures at the bottom of the wiki site showing carbon monoxide levels (which eventually converts to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) you will see that there is a lot of fluctuations in the southern hemisphere, but the northern hemisphere is more constant. Could that have an effect on the ice cores that we are basing our whole premise on?

Also, what about the impact of other gases on the atmosphere? Carbon dioxide is that basis by which other gases are measured, and we can see that there are other manmade molecules that are far worse than CO2.

To sum up, there are too many atmospheric variables to me, to single out one as the sole culprit of everything going on. I also find it telling that the leading proponent of global warming, Mr. Mann, wants to essentially remove water vapor as a greenhouse gas, because it is misleading and humans can't control it. WHAT?!?!?!?

So I leave you, as I am going to have my cake, and eat it too!

Assume everything you said it true, that the data COULD be wrong, that it COULD be that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has absolutely no effect on the temperature. Climate studies aren't an exact science. However, the negative consequences of what the preponderance of evidence points to are too dire to ignore completely.

[WVUFAN]

Charts make my head hurt.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Why methane you ask? Well perhaps the biggest offender: rice patties. And boy do us humans love our rice.

I hate rice. No one can say I never did anything for the enviroment.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I hate rice. No one can say I never did anything for the enviroment.

If you fart, you're still part of the problem.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

If you fart, you're still part of the problem.

I do like baked beans....

[SFL Cat]

People who fart need to reduce their methane footprint.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I blame global warming on the jews.

Technically, the Nazi's were the ones with the ovens.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Technically, the Nazi's were the ones with the ovens.

Wow, some real jesusy stuff there.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

There is a significant amount of ice on Greenland and on Antarctica. Ice that melts off of those landmasses into the oceans will raise the water level around the world.

Even if that ice melts, isn't the world covered two-thirds by water so the increase in water level would be minimal...maybe an inch?

[JPhillips]

From Wikipedia.

E

ach year about 8 mm (0.3 inches) of water from the entire surface of the oceans goes into the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets as snowfall. If no ice returned to the oceans, sea level would drop 8 mm every year. Although approximately the same amount of water returns to the ocean in icebergs and from ice melting at the edges, scientists do not know which is greater — the ice going in or the ice coming out. The difference between the ice input and output is called the mass balance and is important because it causes changes in global sea level.

Ice shelves float on the surface of the sea and, if they melt, to first order they do not change sea level. Likewise, the melting of the northern polar ice cap which is composed of floating pack ice would not significantly contribute to rising sea levels. Because they are fresh, however, their melting would cause a very small increase in sea levels, so small that it is generally neglected. It can however be argued that if ice shelves melt it is a precursor to the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica[citation needed].

* Scientists lack knowledge of changes in terrestrial storage of water. Between 1910 and 1990, such changes may have contributed from –1.1 to +0.4 mm/yr.
* If all glaciers and ice caps melt, the projected rise in sea level will be around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet would produce 7.2 m of sea level rise, and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 61.1 m of sea level rise.[3] The collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea level by 5-6 m.[4]
* The snowline altitude is the altitude of the lowest elevation interval in which minimum annual snow cover exceeds 50%. This ranges from about 5,500 metres above sea-level at the equator down to sea level at about 70 degrees N&S latitude, depending on regional temperature amelioration effects. Permafrost then appears at sea level and extends deeper below sea level polewards.
* As most of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lie above the snowline and/or base of the permafrost zone, they cannot melt in a timeframe much less than several millennia; therefore it is likely that they will not contribute significantly to sea level rise in the coming century. They can however do so through acceleration in flow and enhanced iceberg calving.
* Climate changes during the 20th century are estimated from modelling studies to have led to contributions of between –0.2 and 0.0 mm/yr from Antarctica (the results of increasing precipitation) and 0.0 to 0.1 mm/yr from Greenland (from changes in both precipitation and runoff).
* Estimates suggest that Greenland and Antarctica have contributed 0.0 to 0.5 mm/yr over the 20th century as a result of long-term adjustment to the end of the last ice age.

The current rise in sea level observed from tide gauges, of about 1.8 mm/yr, is within the estimate range from the combination of factors above[5] but active research continues in this field. The uncertainty in the terrestrial storage term is particularly large.

Since 1992 the TOPEX and JASON satellite programs have provided measurements of sea level change. The current data are available at.[6] The data show a mean sea level increase of 2.9±0.4 mm/yr. However, because significant short-term variability in sea level can occur, this recent increase does not necessarily indicate a long-term acceleration in sea level changes.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Even if that ice melts, isn't the world covered two-thirds by water so the increase in water level would be minimal...maybe an inch?

And there goes my hometown again.

[Warhammer]

[quote=MrBigglesworth;1406510]The mean temperature is, so about half the graph from 61-90 will be above the mean and half below the mean. The graph in the 1800s is below the mean because the mean is the mean from 61-90 and temperatures have been rising since then. Here are temperatures over the last million years:


I understand what the mean is. My point was that it was an arbitrary point that they selected.

The interesting thing, is looking at this chart you posted. First, the damn scale changes at different points which makes the chart slightly misleading. Second, I'm not sure how accurately we can measure the exact temperature going back in time, but we should be able to detect the general trend. Given that, it is interesting to note that even prior to industrialization, the temperature of the globe was spiking up. So regardless of any intervention by civilized man, the temperature was going up!

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Assume everything you said it true, that the data COULD be wrong, that it COULD be that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has absolutely no effect on the temperature. Climate studies aren't an exact science. However, the negative consequences of what the preponderance of evidence points to are too dire to ignore completely.

I never said that the atmosphere has no effect on climate. To the contrary, I pointed out that there are several factors that impact it, and the biggest contributor to it was water vapor, which we cannot control to a large degree due to much of that coming from natural processes.

What you do in that last sentence is fear mongering. You basically say, ok I'll concede your points, but if I'm right imagine the consequences. My position is that we don't know what they will be.

CO2, per the wikipedia site on global warming, is the weakest of the man-made emissions in regard to impact on the environment. The wiki lists out 4 or 5 other chemicals that we produce that have a far larger impact on the environment. So why all the emphasis on CO2? I think that is a separate debate from the global warming discussion.

I think the emphasis on CO2 is because the green wackos can go around claiming that we are screwing things up, and can show trends and documents that correspond to each other, but do not necessarily correlate to each other, or are merely byproducts of each other. For example, one of the sites, I think it was the paper that was linked to the blog SFLCat linked to, states that historically, CO2 levels lag warming trends. We know that methane eventually breaks down to CO2 in the atmosphere, and that CO2 has a much longer life in the atmosphere, so could what we have been seeing in the past is that high levels of methane cause the warming, and then over time, it breaks down to CO2, which we see an increase in the levels of after the warming has occurred? If that is the case, based upon the graph you presented, that could be what is happening now.

What is an even scarier thought is if the biomatter of the earth is what causes the fluctuation in methane levels which leads to the warming. How do you regulate that? Everything that decomposes releases methane, plus most forms of life release it in one way or another. Scary thought there.

To finish my previous thought, CO2 is something that we can control to a certain extent on a personal level. I think that there are so many people wringing their hands over our prosperity that they will find any reason to justify us giving stuff up to make themselves feel better. I can understand and respect the Ed Begley's of the world, I think he's nuts, but I respect him. But, the Al Gore's of the world I have no time for. For the record, even removing his "green power" surcharge, he's still paying almost $1000 a month in power. Its basically, you guys need to make sacrifices while I can live in this huge mansion. You need to make the material sacrifice which for me is nothing, etc.

[Bonegavel]

Threads like this never change any opinions and only digress into picking apart some of the minutiae of each side's points.

10 years from now global warming will be out of the news and we will be on to other crises that they can exploit for viewership and scientists will find other ways to get grant money and people to pay attention to them.

To me, the shame in all this is that these scientist (like those in the 70s that cried wolf) are not held accountable and dismissed to the fringes of their professions. How can they be so wrong each and every time and we still fall for their crap?

Life has been around on this planet for millions of years. That sounds like a system that knows how to take care of itself and won't let an increased amount of a few greenhouse gases (that only constitute a fraction of the greenhouse effect) doom the planet.

I think the solar cycle has a vastly greater effect on the temperature of our planet than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. When the solar cycle stopped in the 17th century, it caused the Little Ice Age. We've been adding CO2 for greater length of time and the temp has only gone up a degree or so? If CO2 was so bad, shouldn't we be burning in Hell by now?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I understand what the mean is. My point was that it was an arbitrary point that they selected.

Your point was that the mean was arbitrarily chosen and that it may have been that we are just now coming out of an ice age. The graph shows that these have been the warmest temperatures in 450,000 years.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Given that, it is interesting to note that even prior to industrialization, the temperature of the globe was spiking up. So regardless of any intervention by civilized man, the temperature was going up!

I don't know now you could conclude that, as it looks fairly stable after coming out of the last ice age, and also considering the graph posted earlier showing stable conditions right as the industrial age started.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

What you do in that last sentence is fear mongering. You basically say, ok I'll concede your points, but if I'm right imagine the consequences. My position is that we don't know what they will be.

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying you have a case where the great preponderance of evidence is on one side, and even though you can pick apart each little detail, when taken as a whole it creates a stark picture. In terrorism terms, consider the global warming scientists to be an informant that tells you that the terrorists are plotting a nuclear attack. This terrorist has been right before, but this time he COULD be lying. He gave you a sample of uranium as proof, but he COULD have just found it on the street. If his story were true, there would be a radioactive signature near the building he says the terrorists are in, and you check and there is that signature, but it COULD be some nuclear waste that someone left there. You could pick apart each individual facet of the case. What would you do in that situation though? Not do anything, or take some reasonable steps to stop what is likely to be happening?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

Life has been around on this planet for millions of years. That sounds like a system that knows how to take care of itself and won't let an increased amount of a few greenhouse gases (that only constitute a fraction of the greenhouse effect) doom the planet.

Life has been around for not only millions of years, but billions. Life adapts. But "Life" is a broad term - if global temperatures rise at a rapid rate, the potential results to our atmosphere and climate and the effects those changes would have on things like fresh water access and food production (among other things) could happen at a pace far too fast for human civilization to adapt to in an orderly way. This danger would be bad enough by itself, but add in the presence of nuclear weapons and the potential for the breakdown in modern civilization increases that much more.

[Tigercat]

Life in general is strong. The ability for this this planet to support some kind of life is strong. But the planet as we know it now? Very very fragile. Gradual changes create big changes, and human influenced changes have been anything but gradual over the last 500+ years.

The Day After Tomorrow was a fairly ridiculous movie in almost all respects, but one thing it does hit on that is true is that small environmental changes, such as temperature shifts in oceans, can have drastic consequences that we may not know about until its too late. (Luckily, it is at least unlikely to lead into spontaneous killer ice storms.)

[Drake]

Civilization is overrated anyway.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Drake

Civilization is overrated anyway.

[Drake]

Not the game, dude. The game is awesome.