Climate Change Discussion

[EddieWalker]

Please provide links to support your claims. I am not finding any scientific data to dismiss our contribtion to climate change. Here is an explanation of how volcanoes affect the ozone and "green house" effect.
Vic Camp - volcano climate effects
"a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year"
and also; Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
"While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times)."

Blue is temperature.
Red is CO2

Tig,

I cannot find where I read that volcanos put out more CO2 than humans, so I'll retract that statement and not use it again until I can prove it. My appologies for posting it earlier.

I read your links and found a couple of interesting things.

This quote comes from EarthSave International and explains about CO2. Not that I believe any of this, but it does contradict your position on CO2.


"Data published by Dr. James Hansen and others show that CO2 emissions are not the main cause of observed atmospheric warming. Though this may sound like the work of global warming skeptics, it isn’t: Hansen is Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who has been called “a grandfather of the global warming theory.” He is a longtime supporter of action against global warming, cited by Al Gore and often quoted by environmental organizations, who has argued against skeptics for subverting the scientific process. His results are generally accepted by global warming experts, including bigwigs like Dr. James McCarthy, co-chair of the International Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group II.

The focus solely on CO2 is fueled in part by misconceptions. It’s true that human activity produces vastly more CO2 than all other greenhouse gases put together. However, this does not mean it is responsible for most of the earth’s warming. Many other greenhouse gases trap heat far more powerfully than CO2, some of them tens of thousands of times more powerfully. When taking into account various gases’ global warming potential—defined as the amount of actual warming a gas will produce over the next one hundred years—it turns out that gases other than CO2 make up most of the global warming problem."


Then I saw this graph from another of your links. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2-temp.gif

The does show the elevated CO2 levels, but fails to corolate how they have any effect on the tempature of the planet. Based on this graph, it shows the panets tempatures rising and falling over the last 400,000 years and that we're still below where the tempature should be. It even shows our tempature at a relatively flat graph compred to the planets history.

Again, it all goes back to the very basics. The planet warmed before to much warmer tempatures than we have today. What caused it then? and why isn't it responsible for todays tempatures?

I think you proved my point with your links.

Thanks,
Eddie

 

[hazmat]

Here is an intersting article on wikipedia global warming controversy

Yes, it is tilted "towards" global warming is a human issue, but it gives details on both sides of the controversy (including the theories that Eddie has brought up - Sun spots, natural variation etc.)

I'd ask those who feel that humans aren't causing climate change to consider the precautionary principle

"... a willingness to take action in advance of scientific proof [or] evidence of the need for the proposed action on the grounds that further delay will prove ultimately most costly to society and nature, and, in the longer term, selfish and unfair to future generations."

Also - I have to say, I've enjoyed how civil this discussion has remained

 

[hazmat]

...
I heard recently about some group that you pay money to and they invest in environmental companies so that you can continue your/our addiction to fossil fuels but not feel guilty about it. That sickens me. Glad you are not one of them!...

Yeah - Mr. Gore is actually advocating that you can clear your conscience by "offsetting" your emmisions with these folks. Seems pretty absurd to me.

...I don't believe in GW at all in the form that it is being delivered by the media. I think man's contribution to it, if it is real, is minimal. But here's the kicker, if it is dead real, totally man made and barrelling down on us like a freight train, so what? There is nothing any of us can do about it. If, as a country, we all went green and granola and didn't use another drop of oil, then India, China, the Pacific Rim and Russia are going to gobble it right up. They, at least India and China, are starting their glory days of expansion. We love to glorify our own expansion in the 1890's, so who are we to tell them they can't have their day?...

Perhaps as the "Leaders of the free world" we should set the best example we can, and help others do better than we did (assuming human contributions are driving GW)

 

[SkyPup]

Global Cool adovates taking a shower or bath with you mate to help cut back on BTU consumption.

Global Cool


Next, the United Nations will regulate the amount of BTU's each and every world individual is allowed to daily consume.....

 

[Tig]

Eddie, My point is that we contribute to global warming. Your last post seems to agree with that. Maybe we are on the same side? now wouldn't that be boring.
Thanks for the link to the Earthsave report. Here are my thoughts on the group and the report.
Earthsave seems like a good organization but I would point out their purpose is to "promote a shift towards a healthy plant based diet" Other than that they are people like you and I and not scientists. EarthSave International
Noam Mohr's report looks interesting and well documented so it is possible to review his sources. Although his credentials are not clear, he supports the theory that man is contributing to climate change. He does believe that we have to change our ways to avoid future problems. I'd like to give more detail but I can't find the words. The actual report is not that big and makes his purpose clear.

The CO2 chart scale is too large to discuss easily but the current spike began around 1970.
My point? Noam Mohr's report is complete in that he does include enough detail to not discredit the CO2 issue. You just have to dig a bit.
From the report; "The surprising result is that sources of CO2 emissions are having roughly zero effect on global temperatures in the near-term!13"
Foot note 13; However, Hansen points out that “Offsetting of global mean forcings does not imply that climate effects are negligible.” Hansen, et al., supra note 5.
There is more but it's awkward to be comprehensive when you are picking phrases out of a report that references thousands of pages of research.
I think I have covered the points you brought up by specifically referencing the information you provided.
I find to understand I need to read the entire report including footnotes. Then check references cited and credentials of the author. I will do that tonight to see if I got this right.

 

[thingy]

All the statistics and graphs and other such things won't convince most that man is the main reason for global warming,,,,most have no problems believing the earth as a whole maybe warming slightly,,but I believe it is just a natural cycle of things,,,man may be slightly helping but,we are just bystanders in the big picture,and we have no choice but to go along with what happens.
Just like those pictures they always show of power plants cooling towers,,they show them to make the uninformed believe its smoke/gas pollution,,its water vapor. Power plants pollute,,but not out their cooling towers,,they say this and that and very little proof other than charts and graphs.But a better question is,what does the tree hugging global warming people want to do?,,do away with electricity,or cars and trucks and planes,,[cause thats what they say causes it],,no,they don't want to do that,because even they know we can't/won't do that,,so whats their point,,,,they don't want more nuc plants,they don't want wind farms next to their houses,,and they are seldom after the right people,china makes more pollution than 10 united states,,,you never hear them saying we got to get china and india and them other countries to stop polluting so much now,,no they say we should be even more less polluting,,we are all on the same blue ball,,unless the rest of the world does what we do,,it don't make much difference in the big picture,,,and the rest of the world ain't going to slow down because of what american tree huggers say,,,pollution is not good,,and we have came a long way on that in my lifetime,,and thats a good thing,,,,but tying pollution into global warming is pointless,,,even if its true,,,those vikings would have sky scrapers all over greenland now,,but we had that global cooling thing,,maybe they can get back and continue if it warms up a little,,,,thingy

 

[Egon]

those vikings

They are all sitting around in natural steam heated swimming pools watching their Hydrogen plant at work!

 

[deereman64]

Can I just add two extra points that I don’t think get enough emphasis in this debate.
Firstly, there is no moral stance to be taken on the composition of the Earth or its climate. The planet’s elemental constituents do not change. We cannot say that a new weather pattern is bad for the earth .Rather, it is the distribution of those elements and their impact on man is what concerns us. The planet has gone through many periods of very dramatic climatic change and we cannot say that these were good or bad. Indeed, what is important for humanity is: Can we handle the rate of climatic change given our current level of ability to cope? Malthus, was the first economist to touch on this subject with his hypothesis that “the laws of diminishing returns would have catastrophic implications for mankind”. He would have been truly dumbfounded by our ability to produce and distribute in the quantities that we do today. In other words man’s ability to adapt has outpaced the increase in population. Nevertheless, the Malthusian argument does raise the additional consideration of demand in today’s world. The constriction in the supply of certain resources plus the ability of earth to absorb the use of those resources is coming at a time when demand is going to rapidly increase from places such as China and India. At this point we need politicians and the media to dig deeper into this issues and not fob us off with sound bites and glad/doom tidings.

 

[Doc_Bob]

I take basically the same position as Harry. I think we are in a normal warming cycle. And I think mankind contributes to that. But I am not convinced emission reductions will have a significant impact on minimizing the cycle. However, I do believe it should be done just in case it is a significant factor. It would not be wise to wait for positive proof and then try to reverse it.

I agree with you. The only reason we should minimize CO2 is to reduce fuel use to allow it to last longer. I would not damage an industry or even sign the Kyoto Accords for any reason.
Bob

 

[N80]

Please provide links to support your claims.

That's a fair but meaningless request. It would take me about 30 minutes to make a graph that proved Eddie's claim and post it on a very official looking web page. So sure, you may be right and so might your source, but let's not get into asking for internet sources. And even if Eddie is wrong about C02, he might not be wrong if greenhouse effects are considered since warming, after all, is the topic at hand.

Which leads me to a problem with your graph, which makes a correlation which cannot be logically supported. It plots C02 emissions compared to temperature change. This implies that the two are related. When evaluating scientific papers I am always on guard for a common ploy, or error (if you are naive) that I sum up with the phrase "true, true and unrelated." So C02 goes up and temperatures also go up. The evidence, as presented, is purely circumstantial. Causation has not been established. But scientists, who are humans who have idealogies, religions, agendas and flaws just like the rest of us are constantly making this type of correlation to sway opinion. Plus, causation is the hardest thing to prove. It might look like C02 is the cause since temperature follows almost perfectly, but it doesn't answer the question of what else is going on in addition to C02 emissions. And make no mistake, there are other things going on (lots of them) when a volcanoe erupts or when someone cranks up an SUV.

So sure, ask for sources, but don't expect anyone to trust your sources anymore than we trust someone else's claims. And yes, that is skepticism in action. So what does it take to convince someone that they are wrong? That's easy, ask yourself the same question and you will know. And while I do believe that there is some truth somewhere in the debate on global warming, I also believe that the politicians, corporations, 'scientists' and idealogues on both sides of the issue have made finding the truth in the matter almost impossible.

 

[mjarrels]

I have not read each and every thread but I can tell you from experince... just spent two months in the Phillippines. It was hot every day... I am trying to stay warm every day now... burning coal stove now to stay warm. Yea, I am putting bad stuff in the air, but you should see what third world countries put into the air! Phillippies just completed a new coal fired power plant at millions of dollars with about 14 million going under the table (GMA). Correptition is unreaal. Phillippine govt is still paying about $180,000 a day on interest on the nulear pp started in the 80's under Marcus rule. Most of the money goes into the pockets of Govt people. They would lay a mile of copper in the day time... stole a mile of copper at night. Sad but true. Not related, but China and many other countries are not our friends.

mark

 

[Tig]

N80,
I'm doing my best to present and discuss facts and theories from specific credible sources. I'm hoping others can present facts and theories from specific credible sources. The bottom line is I want to learn about this, not teach it.
I do expect all interested to scrutinize the information and sources I provide. There is little point in either summarily accepting or dismissing them at a glance.

 

[Bird]

The more people you put in a given space, such as a room, the warmer it will be with no other outside heat source; just their body heat and breath. So how much has the population increase in the world contributed to global warming?

 

[mjarrels]

Experince is the best teacher... A daily truck picks up the dead bodies along the road in Kenya... Ain't petty. We in America are doing more than any other country.

mark

 

[N80]

N80,
There is little point in either summarily accepting or dismissing them at a glance.

I may have been concise, but I did not summarily dismiss your data. In fact, I think I made a considerable effort to explain why I felt that the graph did not sufficiently explain what it was obviously suggesting.

 

[thingy]

Bird,thats how them vikings stayed warm in the last global cooling,,but,,that will only work so long if you ain't got no trees to burn,,yeah them vikings now are warming to under ground heat,,but bet they are hopeing to get back to greenland to build more better houses once this golble warming thing kicks in,,,scientists,,,they are still looking for the missing link,,,why,,cause they ain't no missing link to be found,,,we didn't come from monkeys,,,they got alot of unproven theorys,,they teach unproven theorys in schools,,,thats why I don't trust scientists,,,they think they got it all figured out,,,but,,they can't provide prove,,they got monkey bone pieces they patch together to prove stuff,,,,just like the dinisors,,yeah,,they was dinasors,,,but,,how do they know what they looked like really,,they say they were reptials,,maybe they were,,but just cause some laid eggs,don't mean the rest did,,,,to much theory and not any prove,,,,so when them same smart people start hollaring global warming,,,,,who's going to believe them anyways,,,this world is bigger than us,,,thingy,

 

[Egon]

Seems I recall the first life forms on earth multiplied so rapidly and extensively they changed the atmosphere so we can survive.

 

[Tig]

I did not mean to poke at you with that last comment N80, sorry. The comment was intended to explain why I want to examine information and the source.
The chart you referenced was posted to illustrate current levels of CO2 in a historical perspective. That's all.
How CO2 factors in can be found by following the links I posted along with the graph. Read about the green house effect and the haze effect. I'm hesitant to summarize because it will be an incomplete bit of a complex issue, presented by a guy who has no credentials, but here goes...... As I understand it, current levels of CO2 are being offset by current levels of aerosols(smog). Over the long term CO2 will accumilate and aerosols will precipitate. The ballance will be lost. This is just a small part of what is going on. I would not expect anyone to believe this just because I said so, but if you are interested the science is there.
If your opinions disagree with my summary or the science I have presented, that's fine, I will respect them.
If you present science to support you thoughts, I will read it and try to understand.

 

[N80]

If your opinions disagree with my summary or the science I have presented, that's fine, I will respect them.
If you present science to support you thoughts, I will read it and try to understand.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, so my thoughts are pretty easy to defend.

I guess my approach can be described as pragmatic and skeptical at the same time. So much of the 'science' is not science. But if someone uses the term 'science' or 'scientist' there is a presumed credibility. The main thing I want in these discussions is for people to realize that 'science' isn't foolproof, it isn't immune to corruption, it isn't above bias or ideology. So many of the 'scientists' involved in this issue have approached it with an agenda, then they use 'science' to prove the point which fits their agenda. Its the same in all forms of science, including (and particularly) the pharmaceutical sciences with which I am reasonably familiar. It is nothing new. But in the debate on global warming there is virtually no pure science. There is virtually no pure experimentation. Most of the 'science' is observational, speculative and based on concensus among like-minded peers. This is THE lowest form of science. And while it may be the best we can do, it just isn't all that good and when it all boils down to it, it amounts to speculation. And speculation is not sufficient in my mind to make life-altering decisions about.

Then there is the pragmatism. Like I've said before, even if I agreed with every causation theory the most liberal, anti-private property proponent green scientists in the world, I still don't think there is anything we can do about it but adapt. And we will. But if we expend all our energy trying to stop the locomotive we might not have the energy left to step off the track.

 

[Chuck52]

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas". It is not simply the correlation between historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the global temperature which is the sole reason CO2 is called a greenhouse gas. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is such that if one irradiated two greenhouses which were identical except that the atmosphere in one had a higher CO2 concentration, the one with the higher CO2 level would get warmer. That fact is why it makes sense to look for correlations between the Earth's average/mean/whatever temperature and CO2 levels. Clearly, with such a complicated system as our atmosphere and its interactions with the Earth's surface, and the obvious difficulty in obtaining unbiased measurements of both the temperature variation and CO2 concentrations over some extended period of time, a direct, easily seen correlation might be expected to be difficult to obtain. In fact, however, most such studies do suggest such a correlation. The absorption spectrum of CO2 isn't an easily dismissed observation. It is what it is. For a really simple experimental setup, it makes perfect sense that increased CO2 would lead to increased temperatures. In the real atmosphere/Earth complex, there are many more variables, but even so, in the absence of some off-setting covariant, increased CO2 levels should be expected to lead to increased temperatures. Debate where the CO2 comes from. Worry about other potential greenhouse gases and their impact. That makes for a more reasonable argument. Irradiate CO2 and it warms up.

If you don't think man is contributing significantly to CO2 levels, relax and have a homebrew. If you do think man is contributing significantly, but don't feel that we can do anything about it, relax and have a homebrew. If you do think we do and can, it looks like you may get to express your opinion at the polls. Do whatever feels right.

Chuck

Evolve already!