Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2007-05-14 14:57:12
PureFodder
Member
+225|6721

superfly_cox wrote:

Comparing global warming debate to what happened with smoking is like comparing apples and oranges.

Consider that scientists today still don't know what causes natural global warming/cooling!  If we don't know why it happens naturally then how can we be so sure that its happening artificially?

Out of curiosity, any of you ever studied science?  Ever heard of the scientific method?  I was trained in science and taught to respect the scientific method.  What drives me crazy is that the media presents a questionable scientific theory as being 100% scientifically valid.

Science requires experimental controls - something not found in a collection of statistics about an open system.  In real science, everything that can possibly be done to eliminate confounding causes are eliminated.  The earth's atmosphere is an open system - no one knows with any certainty the amount of materials emitted by the earth or even additions from outer space.  An open system is one where we can not control for confounding variables. In the global warming saga, the data collected is fed into a computer model along with many estimates and indirectly theorized numbers.

A relevant scientific theory is put in place and then controlled experiments are run against it in closed systems - the theory doesn't changed every time someone comes out with a new test. This is what real science is about.

With global warming you have a computer model of the largest physical system on earth, that has several uncontrolled inputs with huge error bands that can interact in non linear ways. The model is simplified in many ways because of the limits of computer power. You have emotional humans that decide on just what compromises to make - and these choices can greatly skew the results. Just the shear number of terms makes the output dubious at best - reminiscent of the drake equation)
What I do know about greenhouse gas global warming theory is that it is flawed.  The computer models do not  consistently corroborate the theory nor do they make accurate predictions.  And ultimately, they are a poor substitute for real controlled experiments.  What you're left with is CO2 figures and you cannot base your entire science based on a corollary relationship between CO2 and Global Temperature.  That is not science!  Well, in any case not anymore scientific than this:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Its incredible how people who have no scientific training can tell me that I'm a complete idiot for not accepting CO2 based global warming as being solid science.  It may be right but they haven't proven shit so far.  Ultimately the burden of proof is on the scientists who do this research.  Having 2400 scientists say that they think CO2 causes global warming does not make it science, the same way as (to borrow from gorillatictacs) 20679 physicians saying Lucky Strikes are less irritating doesn't make it so.  Nothing I've seen to date proves that global warming is caused by CO2.

I'm prepared to accept that its a credible theory which would indicate that measures need to be taken in case it turns out to be true.  That's reasonable and logical.  But if you tell me that I must believe it because it is 100% true then I'll tell you to go find out what real science is.
Firstly, I study science, currently doing a doctorate in physical chemistry.

Firstly you seem to be arguing that as we can never make a proper complete and fully perfect model of the world then we cannot make any conclusions about what is causing global warming ever? This is very wrong. We cannot make a model that accurately and fully describes even the simplest molecules, yet we can know a hell of a lot about the world around us. (Just for reference this is the 'it's not 100% perfectly correct therefore it's 100% wrong' stupid argument).

I've read reports, papers and reviews on these subjects (not related to my work, just out of interest), the science behind CO2 being one of the largest contributors to global warming is very much more reliable and overwheling than most people think. To put it another way. Of you sat down and read all 2400 scientists work, results and conclusions, then read the 3-4 that disagreed, you'd find yourself rather more convinced than if you lump them all together into one report/arguement. (this is the 'make loads of incorrect arguments against it and by weight of numbers, not logic, you can convince people)

Just to give a quick look at the two main competing theories to CO2.

1) The sun causes it. That's complete toss, the stratosphere is currently cooling which means there is absolutely no feasable way that the sun is the leading cause of global warming. Fits in well with CO2 causing it though, who'd have thought.

2) Natural cycles. People look at historic data, see cycles, then scream about how the current climate change is therefore simply a natural cycle. What they don't do is look at the previous natural cycles and notice that the current climate changes are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE IT. The very data that shows that natural climate change happens in the first place also disproves the current global warming from being a natural cycle. Yet people don't seem to want to notice the blindingly obvious.

As a person with lots of scientific training, am I allowed to call you an idiot for not accepting CO2 based global warming?
2007-05-14 16:26:32
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7217

PureFodder wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

Comparing global warming debate to what happened with smoking is like comparing apples and oranges.

Consider that scientists today still don't know what causes natural global warming/cooling!  If we don't know why it happens naturally then how can we be so sure that its happening artificially?

Out of curiosity, any of you ever studied science?  Ever heard of the scientific method?  I was trained in science and taught to respect the scientific method.  What drives me crazy is that the media presents a questionable scientific theory as being 100% scientifically valid.

Science requires experimental controls - something not found in a collection of statistics about an open system.  In real science, everything that can possibly be done to eliminate confounding causes are eliminated.  The earth's atmosphere is an open system - no one knows with any certainty the amount of materials emitted by the earth or even additions from outer space.  An open system is one where we can not control for confounding variables. In the global warming saga, the data collected is fed into a computer model along with many estimates and indirectly theorized numbers.

A relevant scientific theory is put in place and then controlled experiments are run against it in closed systems - the theory doesn't changed every time someone comes out with a new test. This is what real science is about.

With global warming you have a computer model of the largest physical system on earth, that has several uncontrolled inputs with huge error bands that can interact in non linear ways. The model is simplified in many ways because of the limits of computer power. You have emotional humans that decide on just what compromises to make - and these choices can greatly skew the results. Just the shear number of terms makes the output dubious at best - reminiscent of the drake equation)
What I do know about greenhouse gas global warming theory is that it is flawed.  The computer models do not  consistently corroborate the theory nor do they make accurate predictions.  And ultimately, they are a poor substitute for real controlled experiments.  What you're left with is CO2 figures and you cannot base your entire science based on a corollary relationship between CO2 and Global Temperature.  That is not science!  Well, in any case not anymore scientific than this:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Its incredible how people who have no scientific training can tell me that I'm a complete idiot for not accepting CO2 based global warming as being solid science.  It may be right but they haven't proven shit so far.  Ultimately the burden of proof is on the scientists who do this research.  Having 2400 scientists say that they think CO2 causes global warming does not make it science, the same way as (to borrow from gorillatictacs) 20679 physicians saying Lucky Strikes are less irritating doesn't make it so.  Nothing I've seen to date proves that global warming is caused by CO2.

I'm prepared to accept that its a credible theory which would indicate that measures need to be taken in case it turns out to be true.  That's reasonable and logical.  But if you tell me that I must believe it because it is 100% true then I'll tell you to go find out what real science is.
Firstly, I study science, currently doing a doctorate in physical chemistry.

Firstly you seem to be arguing that as we can never make a proper complete and fully perfect model of the world then we cannot make any conclusions about what is causing global warming ever? This is very wrong. We cannot make a model that accurately and fully describes even the simplest molecules, yet we can know a hell of a lot about the world around us. (Just for reference this is the 'it's not 100% perfectly correct therefore it's 100% wrong' stupid argument).

I've read reports, papers and reviews on these subjects (not related to my work, just out of interest), the science behind CO2 being one of the largest contributors to global warming is very much more reliable and overwheling than most people think. To put it another way. Of you sat down and read all 2400 scientists work, results and conclusions, then read the 3-4 that disagreed, you'd find yourself rather more convinced than if you lump them all together into one report/arguement. (this is the 'make loads of incorrect arguments against it and by weight of numbers, not logic, you can convince people)

Just to give a quick look at the two main competing theories to CO2.

1) The sun causes it. That's complete toss, the stratosphere is currently cooling which means there is absolutely no feasable way that the sun is the leading cause of global warming. Fits in well with CO2 causing it though, who'd have thought.

2) Natural cycles. People look at historic data, see cycles, then scream about how the current climate change is therefore simply a natural cycle. What they don't do is look at the previous natural cycles and notice that the current climate changes are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE IT. The very data that shows that natural climate change happens in the first place also disproves the current global warming from being a natural cycle. Yet people don't seem to want to notice the blindingly obvious.

As a person with lots of scientific training, am I allowed to call you an idiot for not accepting CO2 based global warming?
no, but you can feel free to consider yourself ignorant and a pathetic scientist to boot.  you missed the whole point.  feel free to study the material and come to a conclusion.  feel free to consider that this theory fits better than any other explanation.  feel free to consider that you have a superior point of view because of your greater understanding of the sciences.  you might even be right, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no definitive proof for the C02 based model of global warming.  its a theory, not fact as its currently reported.  that's my point.  the moment that there stops being debate in science and we start ridiculing people who question even the basic pillars of science is the day science stops being science.

cheers
2007-05-15 00:38:51
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7245|Nårvei

But there is a limit to how much you can disagree with pretty clear facts Gemi that is beyond reasonable doubt.

And it doesn`t look good for the doubt of the theory when Channel 4 is busted with fabricated evidence to prove a swindle is it ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2007-05-15 00:47:53
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7110|Canberra, AUS

superfly_cox wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

Comparing global warming debate to what happened with smoking is like comparing apples and oranges.

Consider that scientists today still don't know what causes natural global warming/cooling!  If we don't know why it happens naturally then how can we be so sure that its happening artificially?

Out of curiosity, any of you ever studied science?  Ever heard of the scientific method?  I was trained in science and taught to respect the scientific method.  What drives me crazy is that the media presents a questionable scientific theory as being 100% scientifically valid.


What I do know about greenhouse gas global warming theory is that it is flawed.  The computer models do not  consistently corroborate the theory nor do they make accurate predictions.  And ultimately, they are a poor substitute for real controlled experiments.  What you're left with is CO2 figures and you cannot base your entire science based on a corollary relationship between CO2 and Global Temperature.  That is not science!  Well, in any case not anymore scientific than this:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Its incredible how people who have no scientific training can tell me that I'm a complete idiot for not accepting CO2 based global warming as being solid science.  It may be right but they haven't proven shit so far.  Ultimately the burden of proof is on the scientists who do this research.  Having 2400 scientists say that they think CO2 causes global warming does not make it science, the same way as (to borrow from gorillatictacs) 20679 physicians saying Lucky Strikes are less irritating doesn't make it so.  Nothing I've seen to date proves that global warming is caused by CO2.

I'm prepared to accept that its a credible theory which would indicate that measures need to be taken in case it turns out to be true.  That's reasonable and logical.  But if you tell me that I must believe it because it is 100% true then I'll tell you to go find out what real science is.
Firstly, I study science, currently doing a doctorate in physical chemistry.

Firstly you seem to be arguing that as we can never make a proper complete and fully perfect model of the world then we cannot make any conclusions about what is causing global warming ever? This is very wrong. We cannot make a model that accurately and fully describes even the simplest molecules, yet we can know a hell of a lot about the world around us. (Just for reference this is the 'it's not 100% perfectly correct therefore it's 100% wrong' stupid argument).

I've read reports, papers and reviews on these subjects (not related to my work, just out of interest), the science behind CO2 being one of the largest contributors to global warming is very much more reliable and overwheling than most people think. To put it another way. Of you sat down and read all 2400 scientists work, results and conclusions, then read the 3-4 that disagreed, you'd find yourself rather more convinced than if you lump them all together into one report/arguement. (this is the 'make loads of incorrect arguments against it and by weight of numbers, not logic, you can convince people)

Just to give a quick look at the two main competing theories to CO2.

1) The sun causes it. That's complete toss, the stratosphere is currently cooling which means there is absolutely no feasable way that the sun is the leading cause of global warming. Fits in well with CO2 causing it though, who'd have thought.

2) Natural cycles. People look at historic data, see cycles, then scream about how the current climate change is therefore simply a natural cycle. What they don't do is look at the previous natural cycles and notice that the current climate changes are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE IT. The very data that shows that natural climate change happens in the first place also disproves the current global warming from being a natural cycle. Yet people don't seem to want to notice the blindingly obvious.

As a person with lots of scientific training, am I allowed to call you an idiot for not accepting CO2 based global warming?
no, but you can feel free to consider yourself ignorant and a pathetic scientist to boot.  you missed the whole point.  feel free to study the material and come to a conclusion.  feel free to consider that this theory fits better than any other explanation.  feel free to consider that you have a superior point of view because of your greater understanding of the sciences.  you might even be right, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no definitive proof for the C02 based model of global warming.  its a theory, not fact as its currently reported.  that's my point.  the moment that there stops being debate in science and we start ridiculing people who question even the basic pillars of science is the day science stops being science.

cheers
There is a big, big difference between having a reasonable debate and having a debate purely for the sake of it in the face of all reasoned evidence.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-05-15 01:24:38
PureFodder
Member
+225|6721
My point was that there really isn't any remotely serious debate over CO2 being the main culprit for climate change. Vast numbers of scientists have looked at it and the almost unanimous agreement is fairly unprecidented in the scientific community. Almost any idea, fact, logic or theory ever created by scientists has been questioned denied and argued over. The only reason the general public seem convinced otherwise is poor reporting and trash science produced by companies who face losing lots of money if they are forced to clean up their act.

The proof for CO2 global warming is as convincing as pretty much anything else in science. Yes there are error bars, uncertainties etc. but those are present on ABSOLUTELY EVERY PIECE OF WORTHY SCIENCE THAT HAS EVER EXISTED. If someone showed me a paper without error calculations on their results and without discussion on possible alternatives at to what may be happening I wouldn't trust it.

What more could anyone ask for than thousands and thoudands of scientists who work specifically in this area all agreeing that their results show the same thing. I challenge you to find any scientific fact over which as many scientists agree, yet everyone will happily take those to be facts because it doesn't mean they have to do anything. (This is the 'give them the answer they want to hear and they'll happily ignore the fact that the answer is stupid' arguement).
2007-05-15 03:52:19
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6986|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
It's not the principle that CO2 causes Climate Change (Stop calling it Global Warming as now cold weather is being blamed on it too), it's the after-science that worries me.  Pictures in the paper of Britain being turned into a set of small Islands and apocalyptic stories of how the rest of the World will be plunged into darkness and all in within our lifetimes.

This is what annoys me, If what the UN says is true it could take up to 1000 years of not doing anything before our World is in a any serious danger.  Hurricane Katrina had nothing to do with Climate Change either but of course the news men and Greenpeace campaigners will tell us it's our fault for driving about in cars all day.

This is what bother me about the whole thing, not the basic theory but the mass hysteria that is surrounded with it.

On the science side though and to the more knowledgeable here, I think it's worth remembering that in the 90s the ice on Kilimanjaro was the poster shot of the effects of "Global Warming".  Today, the ice on the mountain  is not only not melting anymore, it is building up.  Also, a few decades ago the thing that was troubling the boffins was something they termed "Global Cooling", a theory they said would ravage the World but just a few years later their predictions not only turned out to be false but the wrong way around.  Scientist today will say well we didn't know enough about the phenomenon at the time but now we can explain the Ice on Kilimanjaro and the warming theory but the guys in 1970 thought their cooling theory was based on sound science. 

The one thing that doesn't add up to me is that we have spent a lot more time and money on predicting weather and we still can't get that right a week in advance!  And yet I'm supposed to believe that those same scientist can say what the weather will be like in 100 years....
2007-05-15 05:51:44
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7217

PureFodder wrote:

My point was that there really isn't any remotely serious debate over CO2 being the main culprit for climate change. Vast numbers of scientists have looked at it and the almost unanimous agreement is fairly unprecidented in the scientific community. Almost any idea, fact, logic or theory ever created by scientists has been questioned denied and argued over. The only reason the general public seem convinced otherwise is poor reporting and trash science produced by companies who face losing lots of money if they are forced to clean up their act.

The proof for CO2 global warming is as convincing as pretty much anything else in science. Yes there are error bars, uncertainties etc. but those are present on ABSOLUTELY EVERY PIECE OF WORTHY SCIENCE THAT HAS EVER EXISTED. If someone showed me a paper without error calculations on their results and without discussion on possible alternatives at to what may be happening I wouldn't trust it.

What more could anyone ask for than thousands and thoudands of scientists who work specifically in this area all agreeing that their results show the same thing. I challenge you to find any scientific fact over which as many scientists agree, yet everyone will happily take those to be facts because it doesn't mean they have to do anything. (This is the 'give them the answer they want to hear and they'll happily ignore the fact that the answer is stupid' argument).
When you're not being self-righteous and condescending you can actually make some good arguments.  The absolute scientific consensus is certainly a good reason and probably the only reason I think that the greenhouse theory is probably right.  Unfortunately that's really the main thing.  None of their evidence seems very sound to me. Plus, the fact that we don't even know what the natural cause of global cooling and warming is makes me suspicious of any studies in this field.  As scientists, if you can't have controls (because there's no parallel earth where you can not have CO2 emissions) then you must at least be able to adjust for confounding factors (natural warming/cooling) before you can effectively prove your theory.  Since we don't understand nor are able to predict natural warming/cooling, we can't rule that out as.

If you want to break it down for me as to how we know with 99% certainty that global warming is man made then i'm willing to listen.

btw, i'm willing to accept global warming theory...just not willing to accept that there's not a possibility (and I don't mean <1%) that there are other explanations or that maybe it accounts for only a small proportion of the current warming.
2007-05-15 06:10:50
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7245|Nårvei

Then perhaps you can understand this Gemi ?

Deforestation adds to the effect of climate change in two different ways.

1. Burning the rain-forest releases CO2 emissions at a rate nature itself are not capable of.
2. The amount of CO2 released by deforestation is increasing while the actual rain-forest that could absorb the emissions are decreasing.

That unbalance is man made without a doubt.

My other point in this debate and like Purefodder stated: Look at the previous natural cycles and notice that the current climate changes are absolutely nothing even remotely like the cycle we are experiencing now, the values of CO2 emissions have never ever been this high indicating it is more than likely man made emissions. Scientists and Geologists agrees on this.

Those two are crucial elements to why many are convinced it can`t be nature alone providing such high values, but still i can`t provide you with fact-sheets that shows these to be 99% accurate, but the consensus amongst the scientists appointed by the UN is 100%

And i myself doesn`t have to be a scientist to comprehend those two points are enough to become a believer of the man made factor in this - it`s close to indisputable !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2007-05-15 06:40:57
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7217

Varegg wrote:

Then perhaps you can understand this Gemi ?

Deforestation adds to the effect of climate change in two different ways.

1. Burning the rain-forest releases CO2 emissions at a rate nature itself are not capable of.
2. The amount of CO2 released by deforestation is increasing while the actual rain-forest that could absorb the emissions are decreasing.

That unbalance is man made without a doubt.
high levels of CO2 in atmosphere is without a doubt caused by humans.  i agree with this 100%.  but linking CO2 and climate change is the issue here.

varegg wrote:

My other point in this debate and like Purefodder stated: Look at the previous natural cycles and notice that the current climate changes are absolutely nothing even remotely like the cycle we are experiencing now, the values of CO2 emissions have never ever been this high indicating it is more than likely man made emissions. Scientists and Geologists agrees on this.

Those two are crucial elements to why many are convinced it can`t be nature alone providing such high values, but still i can`t provide you with fact-sheets that shows these to be 99% accurate, but the consensus amongst the scientists appointed by the UN is 100%

And i myself doesn`t have to be a scientist to comprehend those two points are enough to become a believer of the man made factor in this - it`s close to indisputable !
Its not necessarily the CO2 causing the warming.  It could be that high CO2 is inconsequential in global warming.  There's no way to prove a causal relationship between CO2 and warming.  If there were then we wouldn't have seen a period of cooling between 1940-1970.

btw, IPCC writes in their recent report: * Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

IPCC is making best guesses as scientists should because they know that they can't prove a causal relationship.  Beyond this the media takes this and reports it as 100% of global warming is 100% linked to CO2 emissions.  There is the problem because at that point it becomes political and science should never be political.
2007-05-15 07:31:31
PureFodder
Member
+225|6721

superfly_cox wrote:

Its not necessarily the CO2 causing the warming.  It could be that high CO2 is inconsequential in global warming.  There's no way to prove a causal relationship between CO2 and warming.  If there were then we wouldn't have seen a period of cooling between 1940-1970.
The period of cooling was due mainly to humanity discovering aerosols and dumping vast amounts of them into the atmosphere, the end of the cooling apparently fits nicely with the reductions in aerosol use in the world.
2007-05-15 07:34:29
PureFodder
Member
+225|6721

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

It's not the principle that CO2 causes Climate Change (Stop calling it Global Warming as now cold weather is being blamed on it too), it's the after-science that worries me.  Pictures in the paper of Britain being turned into a set of small Islands and apocalyptic stories of how the rest of the World will be plunged into darkness and all in within our lifetimes.

This is what annoys me, If what the UN says is true it could take up to 1000 years of not doing anything before our World is in a any serious danger.  Hurricane Katrina had nothing to do with Climate Change either but of course the news men and Greenpeace campaigners will tell us it's our fault for driving about in cars all day.

This is what bother me about the whole thing, not the basic theory but the mass hysteria that is surrounded with it.

On the science side though and to the more knowledgeable here, I think it's worth remembering that in the 90s the ice on Kilimanjaro was the poster shot of the effects of "Global Warming".  Today, the ice on the mountain  is not only not melting anymore, it is building up.  Also, a few decades ago the thing that was troubling the boffins was something they termed "Global Cooling", a theory they said would ravage the World but just a few years later their predictions not only turned out to be false but the wrong way around.  Scientist today will say well we didn't know enough about the phenomenon at the time but now we can explain the Ice on Kilimanjaro and the warming theory but the guys in 1970 thought their cooling theory was based on sound science. 

The one thing that doesn't add up to me is that we have spent a lot more time and money on predicting weather and we still can't get that right a week in advance!  And yet I'm supposed to believe that those same scientist can say what the weather will be like in 100 years....
I absolutely agree that there are a load of idiots running around screaming about how global warming is going to destroy mankind, flood the entire world etc. It's complete crap. They're just as bad as the ones that deny CO2 as a leading factor. They both ignore the science and just make up their own rubbish and spew it into the ever ready hands of the press.
2007-05-15 07:37:22
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7245|Nårvei

So that the melting of glaciers and that they melt in less than 15 years when they have "survived" for many thousands of years is not due to GW ?

That we face the possibillity of not having ice on the north pole during summertime witch known to man have never happend before is not a sign of GW ?

That the amount of fresh melting water streaming into the Atlantic in such a large amount that it may stop the Golf stream and redirect it is not a sign of GW ?

These few of many incidents together with the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is so highly concentrated that it causes sunbeams to reflect back on earth thus causing the oceans to warm or rather not letting it cool between seasons.

This is the link between GW and CO2.

All this can be found in the UN climate report.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2007-05-15 08:05:54
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7200|Dallas

Cougar wrote:

I don't understand exactly why it would be considered a "swindle".  At most, all I see is more restrictive guidelines being put on companies and machinery that produce CO2, which would be better for the environment  and would also decrease our oil consumption. 

Why not?
Anyone?  No?
2007-05-15 08:43:37
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6986|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

Varegg wrote:

So that the melting of glaciers and that they melt in less than 15 years when they have "survived" for many thousands of years is not due to GW ?

That we face the possibillity of not having ice on the north pole during summertime witch known to man have never happend before is not a sign of GW ?

That the amount of fresh melting water streaming into the Atlantic in such a large amount that it may stop the Golf stream and redirect it is not a sign of GW ?

These few of many incidents together with the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is so highly concentrated that it causes sunbeams to reflect back on earth thus causing the oceans to warm or rather not letting it cool between seasons.

This is the link between GW and CO2.

All this can be found in the UN climate report.
Varegg the ice at the Poles hasn't always been there and it's existence is what defines an "Ice Age".  Officially we are in one because we have Ice at the poles but the world hasn't always been in an Ice age and I don't expect it to always be.

Again, I'm not anti-climate change but the north and south poles have formed and disapeared many times over the course of the Earth's history.

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-05-15 08:44:45)

2007-05-15 09:06:13
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7245|Nårvei

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Varegg wrote:

So that the melting of glaciers and that they melt in less than 15 years when they have "survived" for many thousands of years is not due to GW ?

That we face the possibillity of not having ice on the north pole during summertime witch known to man have never happend before is not a sign of GW ?

That the amount of fresh melting water streaming into the Atlantic in such a large amount that it may stop the Golf stream and redirect it is not a sign of GW ?

These few of many incidents together with the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is so highly concentrated that it causes sunbeams to reflect back on earth thus causing the oceans to warm or rather not letting it cool between seasons.

This is the link between GW and CO2.

All this can be found in the UN climate report.
Varegg the ice at the Poles hasn't always been there and it's existence is what defines an "Ice Age".  Officially we are in one because we have Ice at the poles but the world hasn't always been in an Ice age and I don't expect it to always be.

Again, I'm not anti-climate change but the north and south poles have formed and disapeared many times over the course of the Earth's history.
Been trying to find the source about the icecaps on the north and south pole, i`ve read several places that they have very good indications that the poles haven`t been ice free for about 50 million years and at the rate they are melting now the north pole could be ice free in the year 2040, maybe sooner since the rate of melting is speeding up.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2007-05-15 10:38:06
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6986|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

Varegg wrote:

Been trying to find the source about the icecaps on the north and south pole, i`ve read several places that they have very good indications that the poles haven`t been ice free for about 50 million years and at the rate they are melting now the north pole could be ice free in the year 2040, maybe sooner since the rate of melting is speeding up.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

At least two periods there are hotter than today and another one is as hot.  There are several periods that come close and there clearly four occasions where there is a dramatic rise with the last being recently.  All I want to know (I'm sure Scientists could tell me) what caused the similar patterns thousands of years ago?  The graph also suggests we were overdue for a heat rise and the others occured more frequently so surely it would be more weird if we didn't experience any warming.

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-05-15 10:57:31)

2007-05-15 14:48:15
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7217

Cougar wrote:

Cougar wrote:

I don't understand exactly why it would be considered a "swindle".  At most, all I see is more restrictive guidelines being put on companies and machinery that produce CO2, which would be better for the environment  and would also decrease our oil consumption. 

Why not?
Anyone?  No?
The swindle is that media reports that green house gases are the definative cause of global warming, when in fact there is a debate as to whether this is so.  Also there's uncertainty about what proportion of global warming is accounted for by green house gases.

Regarding your second point, I agree that prudent measures in case the theory is right should be enacted because they have the added benefit of decreasing polution and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
2007-05-15 15:12:10
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7017|SE London

superfly_cox wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

Comparing global warming debate to what happened with smoking is like comparing apples and oranges.

Consider that scientists today still don't know what causes natural global warming/cooling!  If we don't know why it happens naturally then how can we be so sure that its happening artificially?

Out of curiosity, any of you ever studied science?  Ever heard of the scientific method?  I was trained in science and taught to respect the scientific method.  What drives me crazy is that the media presents a questionable scientific theory as being 100% scientifically valid.


What I do know about greenhouse gas global warming theory is that it is flawed.  The computer models do not  consistently corroborate the theory nor do they make accurate predictions.  And ultimately, they are a poor substitute for real controlled experiments.  What you're left with is CO2 figures and you cannot base your entire science based on a corollary relationship between CO2 and Global Temperature.  That is not science!  Well, in any case not anymore scientific than this:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Its incredible how people who have no scientific training can tell me that I'm a complete idiot for not accepting CO2 based global warming as being solid science.  It may be right but they haven't proven shit so far.  Ultimately the burden of proof is on the scientists who do this research.  Having 2400 scientists say that they think CO2 causes global warming does not make it science, the same way as (to borrow from gorillatictacs) 20679 physicians saying Lucky Strikes are less irritating doesn't make it so.  Nothing I've seen to date proves that global warming is caused by CO2.

I'm prepared to accept that its a credible theory which would indicate that measures need to be taken in case it turns out to be true.  That's reasonable and logical.  But if you tell me that I must believe it because it is 100% true then I'll tell you to go find out what real science is.
Firstly, I study science, currently doing a doctorate in physical chemistry.

Firstly you seem to be arguing that as we can never make a proper complete and fully perfect model of the world then we cannot make any conclusions about what is causing global warming ever? This is very wrong. We cannot make a model that accurately and fully describes even the simplest molecules, yet we can know a hell of a lot about the world around us. (Just for reference this is the 'it's not 100% perfectly correct therefore it's 100% wrong' stupid argument).

I've read reports, papers and reviews on these subjects (not related to my work, just out of interest), the science behind CO2 being one of the largest contributors to global warming is very much more reliable and overwheling than most people think. To put it another way. Of you sat down and read all 2400 scientists work, results and conclusions, then read the 3-4 that disagreed, you'd find yourself rather more convinced than if you lump them all together into one report/arguement. (this is the 'make loads of incorrect arguments against it and by weight of numbers, not logic, you can convince people)

Just to give a quick look at the two main competing theories to CO2.

1) The sun causes it. That's complete toss, the stratosphere is currently cooling which means there is absolutely no feasable way that the sun is the leading cause of global warming. Fits in well with CO2 causing it though, who'd have thought.

2) Natural cycles. People look at historic data, see cycles, then scream about how the current climate change is therefore simply a natural cycle. What they don't do is look at the previous natural cycles and notice that the current climate changes are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE IT. The very data that shows that natural climate change happens in the first place also disproves the current global warming from being a natural cycle. Yet people don't seem to want to notice the blindingly obvious.

As a person with lots of scientific training, am I allowed to call you an idiot for not accepting CO2 based global warming?
no, but you can feel free to consider yourself ignorant and a pathetic scientist to boot.  you missed the whole point.  feel free to study the material and come to a conclusion.  feel free to consider that this theory fits better than any other explanation.  feel free to consider that you have a superior point of view because of your greater understanding of the sciences.  you might even be right, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no definitive proof for the C02 based model of global warming.  its a theory, not fact as its currently reported.  that's my point.  the moment that there stops being debate in science and we start ridiculing people who question even the basic pillars of science is the day science stops being science.

cheers
All of science is theory. I assume you believe we are made up of atoms? So do I. But have you ever seen an atom? Have they ever been proven to exist? No. There are just theories that have been substantiated by repeated testing and observation.

The theory that global warming is caused by carbon emissions is extremely well substantiated.

There are a very few scientists out there who do not accept the theory, but their opposition to it is hardly sufficient for there to be any real debate. The best and most qualified scientists almost universally accept that carbon emissions are responsible for climate change.

Not that the theory should not be questioned, because in questioning it and real examination of the science behind these occurences will lead to greater understanding of it. But promoting the concept that global warming is not caused by carbon emissions is extremely unproductive, it is extremely likely that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the unprecedented rise in temperatures over such a short period. To tell people otherwise is simply irresponsible, since it is by far and away the best proven theory on the cause of climate change - which could have extreme negative consequences.

Although global warming has become a scapegoat for all sorts of unusual ecological occurences. This is something I am opposed to, since I see no real evidence behind why many of these disasters are caused by global warming.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-15 15:15:36)

2007-05-15 15:48:39
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6986|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

Bertster7 wrote:

All of science is theory. I assume you believe we are made up of atoms? So do I. But have you ever seen an atom? Have they ever been proven to exist? No. There are just theories that have been substantiated by repeated testing and observation.

The theory that global warming is caused by carbon emissions is extremely well substantiated.

There are a very few scientists out there who do not accept the theory, but their opposition to it is hardly sufficient for there to be any real debate. The best and most qualified scientists almost universally accept that carbon emissions are responsible for climate change.

Not that the theory should not be questioned, because in questioning it and real examination of the science behind these occurences will lead to greater understanding of it. But promoting the concept that global warming is not caused by carbon emissions is extremely unproductive, it is extremely likely that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the unprecedented rise in temperatures over such a short period. To tell people otherwise is simply irresponsible, since it is by far and away the best proven theory on the cause of climate change - which could have extreme negative consequences.

Although global warming has become a scapegoat for all sorts of unusual ecological occurences. This is something I am opposed to, since I see no real evidence behind why many of these disasters are caused by global warming.
Look at my graph, this rise is not "unprecendeted" as it has happened several times in the last 500,000 years.
2007-05-15 17:03:33
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7217

Bertster7 wrote:

The theory that global warming is caused by carbon emissions is extremely well substantiated.
ORLY

Then answer me:

1) how is the causal link between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature established?  where's the proof that increasing CO2 causes increased temperature? and don't show me the graphs that show that temperature and CO2 go up and down together cause all that proves is that either CO2 causes temperature to rise or that temperature rises causes CO2 increase or that there is some confounding factor which we aren't considering.

2) how can green house gas theory to global warming be evaluated considering we don't know the natural cause of global warming and cooling via natural cycles. in other words, if you can't predict natural warming/cooling then how can you correct for this phenomenon in your scientific studies.

3) since when is science regarding climate really science?  the earth is an open system meaning that we can never run controlled experiments on it.  everything is based on theories and no models (computer or otherwise) has so far been able to reliably predict global climate.

4) why all the fuss over 2400 unanimous IPCC scientists who advocate global warming?  The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.  if they ever came out and said "we can't really prove man-made global warming

5) since CO2 and temperature are linked, what is the mechanism that causes the C02 to periodically go up and down (in a cyclical fashion) so as to raise or lower the temperature.    Where's the proof for it?


Bertster7 wrote:

There are a very few scientists out there who do not accept the theory, but their opposition to it is hardly sufficient for there to be any real debate. The best and most qualified scientists almost universally accept that carbon emissions are responsible for climate change.
ORLY

How about Claude Allegre?  see this

Or how about these 20+ scientists?

What about the Wall Street Journal?  They're pretty credible...no?

Bertster7 wrote:

Not that the theory should not be questioned, because in questioning it and real examination of the science behind these occurences will lead to greater understanding of it. But promoting the concept that global warming is not caused by carbon emissions is extremely unproductive, it is extremely likely that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the unprecedented rise in temperatures over such a short period. To tell people otherwise is simply irresponsible, since it is by far and away the best proven theory on the cause of climate change - which could have extreme negative consequences.

Although global warming has become a scapegoat for all sorts of unusual ecological occurences. This is something I am opposed to, since I see no real evidence behind why many of these disasters are caused by global warming.
on a yearly basis human produced C02 accounts for .12% of green house gases.  Over the past 150 years human produced CO2 accounts for 1/10,000 of the atmosphere.  are you sure that this is why the earth is warming or is there room for other explanations?

if your only reasons for believing that greenhouse gases are:

1) Al Gore's Documentary
2) The Hockey Stick Model
3) 2400 IPCC scientist who unanimously agree
4) Computer Models

then you're in trouble cause from everything i've read, and i'm neither a conspiracy theorist nor a neo-con supporter with a political agenda, the evidence for greenhouse gases as the major cause of global warming is weak to say the least.  where the fuck is the evidence?  --> if you give me google links then you're a moron.
2007-05-15 17:08:24
Yellowman03
Once Again, We Meet at Last
+108|6670|Texas
Some people believe the world's heating is due to the greenhouse effect while others believe the Earth goes through ice and warm periods. They suggest that humans came into existence right after the cooling period, and right now we are in he warming period...but not at it's climax yet.

rawr
2007-05-16 02:06:05
PureFodder
Member
+225|6721

superfly_cox wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The theory that global warming is caused by carbon emissions is extremely well substantiated.
ORLY

Then answer me:

1) how is the causal link between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature established?  where's the proof that increasing CO2 causes increased temperature? and don't show me the graphs that show that temperature and CO2 go up and down together cause all that proves is that either CO2 causes temperature to rise or that temperature rises causes CO2 increase or that there is some confounding factor which we aren't considering.

2) how can green house gas theory to global warming be evaluated considering we don't know the natural cause of global warming and cooling via natural cycles. in other words, if you can't predict natural warming/cooling then how can you correct for this phenomenon in your scientific studies.

3) since when is science regarding climate really science?  the earth is an open system meaning that we can never run controlled experiments on it.  everything is based on theories and no models (computer or otherwise) has so far been able to reliably predict global climate.

4) why all the fuss over 2400 unanimous IPCC scientists who advocate global warming?  The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.  if they ever came out and said "we can't really prove man-made global warming

5) since CO2 and temperature are linked, what is the mechanism that causes the C02 to periodically go up and down (in a cyclical fashion) so as to raise or lower the temperature.    Where's the proof for it?


Bertster7 wrote:

There are a very few scientists out there who do not accept the theory, but their opposition to it is hardly sufficient for there to be any real debate. The best and most qualified scientists almost universally accept that carbon emissions are responsible for climate change.
ORLY

How about Claude Allegre?  see this

Or how about these 20+ scientists?

What about the Wall Street Journal?  They're pretty credible...no?

Bertster7 wrote:

Not that the theory should not be questioned, because in questioning it and real examination of the science behind these occurences will lead to greater understanding of it. But promoting the concept that global warming is not caused by carbon emissions is extremely unproductive, it is extremely likely that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the unprecedented rise in temperatures over such a short period. To tell people otherwise is simply irresponsible, since it is by far and away the best proven theory on the cause of climate change - which could have extreme negative consequences.

Although global warming has become a scapegoat for all sorts of unusual ecological occurences. This is something I am opposed to, since I see no real evidence behind why many of these disasters are caused by global warming.
on a yearly basis human produced C02 accounts for .12% of green house gases.  Over the past 150 years human produced CO2 accounts for 1/10,000 of the atmosphere.  are you sure that this is why the earth is warming or is there room for other explanations?

if your only reasons for believing that greenhouse gases are:

1) Al Gore's Documentary
2) The Hockey Stick Model
3) 2400 IPCC scientist who unanimously agree
4) Computer Models

then you're in trouble cause from everything i've read, and i'm neither a conspiracy theorist nor a neo-con supporter with a political agenda, the evidence for greenhouse gases as the major cause of global warming is weak to say the least.  where the fuck is the evidence?  --> if you give me google links then you're a moron.
1) Radiation from the sun gets through the atmosphere and hits the Earth (most of the radiation going through the troposphere is not in CO2's absorbtion spectrum)
The incoming radiation is absorbed on the planets surface and subsequently re-emitted largely as infra red radiation.
CO2 strongly absorbs the emitted radiation, then re-emits it at slightly lower energy (the rest becomes essentially heat). It is emitted in a random direction, thusly instead of getting fired off into space, the energy gets trapped in the atmosphere, warming it up. Same thing happens to a lesser extent with water and methane.

2) Look at all the data we have on those previous warming and cooling cycles and note that what's happening now looks nothing like them, hence there must be something else contributing strongly to it.

3) As I said, no model has ever managed to accurately model anything at all. To model the effects of all the interactions in H2, the simplest molecule found on Earth is impossible. Yet all these computers, satellites, genetic engineering's etc. etc. etc. all work despite being based on theories that can't account for everything. Models are made to be as accurate as possible, but if some other effect or study finds something new, it gets updated. CO2 being a large contributor to global warming is by far and away the best explanation so far. You probably don't realise how little scope there really is for it to be anything else. Read some scientific literature on the subject, the debate is largely only existent in the general public, the scientists are as convinced as they are on anything, but remain open to someone coming up with something plausible, which nobody has.

4) After several decades of scientists publishing thousands of papers and articles showing that global warming is real, it's because of us and we should try to stop it, and being largely ignored because people don't want to hear it, they felt the best option was a single unanimous voice to show that yes they all agree, it's real, deal with it. But people have amazing skills in the area of 'sticking fingers in ears'. What more do you want that vast numbers of scientists that know far more than any of us all agreeing?

5) As I said, the previous natural cycles aren't anything like what's happening today, so they are not necessarily caused by CO2. Just remember, what's happening now is clearly very different to any climate change that has every happened before.

6) I wouldn't trust the Wall Street Journal to know the first thing about science. 20 scientists vs. 2400 scientists. There are literally a hundred to one on the subject. That is usually a very good sign as to who is wrong. on very few occasions the minority is right, but examples of that are frankly few and far between.

7) Remember the ozone? Wanna guess how few ppm of CFCs there were in the atmosphere that caused so much damage? Humans add 0.12% to the amount of greenhouse gasses EACH YEAR! Per century we'll add 12%, that's a HUGE difference. The rest of the greenhouse gasses are in a natural cycle, we are adding greenhouse gasses that are completely outside that cycle.

8) Never seen AL Gore's documentary, the hockey stick is actually better than most skeptics are willing to believe, If you don't believe a vast majority of scientists when they agree then what's the point in paying scientists to research stuff if you're going to ignore them anyway? Remember these are the people who know the most about the subject, and they are in almost complete agreement. Where do you get your information from? I get it from scientific journals and from science magazines such as SciAm and New Scientist. Models are far more robust than skeptics will admit to you.
2007-05-16 05:17:31
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7017|SE London

superfly_cox wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The theory that global warming is caused by carbon emissions is extremely well substantiated.
ORLY

Then answer me:

1) how is the causal link between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature established?  where's the proof that increasing CO2 causes increased temperature? and don't show me the graphs that show that temperature and CO2 go up and down together cause all that proves is that either CO2 causes temperature to rise or that temperature rises causes CO2 increase or that there is some confounding factor which we aren't considering.

2) how can green house gas theory to global warming be evaluated considering we don't know the natural cause of global warming and cooling via natural cycles. in other words, if you can't predict natural warming/cooling then how can you correct for this phenomenon in your scientific studies.

3) since when is science regarding climate really science?  the earth is an open system meaning that we can never run controlled experiments on it.  everything is based on theories and no models (computer or otherwise) has so far been able to reliably predict global climate.

4) why all the fuss over 2400 unanimous IPCC scientists who advocate global warming?  The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.  if they ever came out and said "we can't really prove man-made global warming

5) since CO2 and temperature are linked, what is the mechanism that causes the C02 to periodically go up and down (in a cyclical fashion) so as to raise or lower the temperature.    Where's the proof for it?


Bertster7 wrote:

There are a very few scientists out there who do not accept the theory, but their opposition to it is hardly sufficient for there to be any real debate. The best and most qualified scientists almost universally accept that carbon emissions are responsible for climate change.
ORLY

How about Claude Allegre?  see this

Or how about these 20+ scientists?

What about the Wall Street Journal?  They're pretty credible...no?

Bertster7 wrote:

Not that the theory should not be questioned, because in questioning it and real examination of the science behind these occurences will lead to greater understanding of it. But promoting the concept that global warming is not caused by carbon emissions is extremely unproductive, it is extremely likely that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the unprecedented rise in temperatures over such a short period. To tell people otherwise is simply irresponsible, since it is by far and away the best proven theory on the cause of climate change - which could have extreme negative consequences.

Although global warming has become a scapegoat for all sorts of unusual ecological occurences. This is something I am opposed to, since I see no real evidence behind why many of these disasters are caused by global warming.
on a yearly basis human produced C02 accounts for .12% of green house gases.  Over the past 150 years human produced CO2 accounts for 1/10,000 of the atmosphere.  are you sure that this is why the earth is warming or is there room for other explanations?

if your only reasons for believing that greenhouse gases are:

1) Al Gore's Documentary
2) The Hockey Stick Model
3) 2400 IPCC scientist who unanimously agree
4) Computer Models

then you're in trouble cause from everything i've read, and i'm neither a conspiracy theorist nor a neo-con supporter with a political agenda, the evidence for greenhouse gases as the major cause of global warming is weak to say the least.  where the fuck is the evidence?  --> if you give me google links then you're a moron.
Firstly, have you ever read the IPCC reports? I know they are quite long documents, but they do make very interesting reading and will answer most of the questions you have raised far better than I ever could. If you can't be bothered to read them, then at least try some of the simpler, shortened down stuff on realclimate.org. But ultimately, if you can't be bothered to read the most central documents to the whole argument, then you are not really qualified to critise the findings of them.

Let's go through the arguments rasied in the great global warming swindle and look at just how misrepresented they are:

1) The link is established by the data on the graphs. This on its own is evidence, since the correlation is so exact. The lag that can be seen on the graphs between temperature and CO2 fit in perfectly with feedback models. There is currently no credible explanation for how temperature could lead CO2 levels. As for their being some confounding factor that is not being considered, it is possible, but unlikely, the correlation between carbon levels and temperature is so great that it can not be put down to coincidence - there is a link between carbon levels and temperature and it can be shown that increased carbon levels lead to increased temperature levels.

It is by no means certain that carbon levels trigger climate change, in fact the current IPCC assessments do not claim that carbon levels initiate global warming cycles. It has been shown that carbon levels act as a catalyst for these cycles once they are underway. This is the concern, since it is clear that we are currently in a global warming cycle.

It is well understood that the greenhouse effect is definitely (in so much as any scientific theory is definite) a real thing. If it were not for the greenhouse effect then NASA exert that the global average temperature would be about -18C. This view is echoed by the NOAA and all other global climatology and meteorology departments. So the effect that greenhouse gases have is understood, quite comprehenisvely.

2) Understanding of natural warming and cooling cycles is limited. What is understood is how they occur once they are triggered. The trigger itself is still the subject of debate, but there are many theories on the subject.

3) Perhaps you should read this.

4) Did you finish your paragraph there?
if they ever came out and said "we can't really prove man-made global warming
What? I'm not really sure where you are going with that.

You're really asking why there is a lot of fuss over 2400 of the top scientists in their field coming to a unanimous decision that climate change is a problem? Isn't it immediately obvious to you?

5) I'm not going to explain all this, because it's complicated and I'll do a crap job. Read the reports.

The IPCC recommendations are of far less concern to me than the recommendations of the Joint Academies of Sciences.

Another reason is that the counter claims are so weak. The two biggest publications denying that climate change is influenced by human factors are the OISM petition, which is a complete load of crap, and the Leipzig declaration. Most of the evidence for these scientific studies comes from data collected by satellites, satellites not designed to record the type of data for this sort of analysis. Every report I have ever read opposing the theory of global warming cites data taken from such satellites - such as the MSU (Microwave Sounding Units) satellites which are, according to the team responsible for collating and analysing the data from them for the NoAA (Remote Sensing Systems, RSS), "intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies".

The data used in all the reports that seek to discredit the findings of the IPCC is extremely suspect. Whereas the anomalies between atmospheric carbon levels and temperature have already been explained with a high degree of accuracy by analysis of various feedback mechanisms, which lead to a delay, which is wrongly interpreted by some as being evidence that temperature leads carbon levels, rather than vice versa.

Your link to Claude Allegre stuff doesn't work. Your list of 20 scientists, predomiantly from only partialy related scientific disciplines, does little to show any serious lack of concensus. It would be easy to whip out the list of Kyoto backing scientists which includes every nobel prize winner in the field and has hundereds of the very top scientists in the world on it - makes a list of 20 scientists seem a bit redundant. The Wall Street Journal, no, they're not really a credible scientific source at all - they're a credible source on financial matters, not scientific ones. You want to be reading articles from New Scientist or Nature - those are some credible scientific sources. Peer reviewed scientific papers should be where you get your information, not the Wall Street Journal.

I'd be interested to see your sources for your claims that:
on a yearly basis human produced C02 accounts for .12% of green house gases.  Over the past 150 years human produced CO2 accounts for 1/10,000 of the atmosphere.
After 9/11 the lack of air travel across the US made a significant impact on atmospheric carbon levels. This is well recorded. If human emissions account for such a small part of global carbon levels, why should this have had such an obvious effect on the immediate levels recorded?

Here is an article from a respected scientific journal, which demonstrates how the level of carbon in the atmosphere is rapidly increasing due to human produced carbon emissions.

To sum up: I'm saying that the current theory behind climate change, as outlined in the IPCC assessments, is well substatiated since; there is no credible oppostition to the theory, the models behind the theory fit extremely well with historical observation - whereas all opposing theories do not, there is overwhelming scientific concensus and because the model fits with previously established and tested theories very well.

Precisely the reasons that any other commonly accepted theories are substantiated.
2007-05-16 09:05:08
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7217

Bertster7 wrote:

I'd be interested to see your sources for your claims that:
on a yearly basis human produced C02 accounts for .12% of green house gases.  Over the past 150 years human produced CO2 accounts for 1/10,000 of the atmosphere.
Didn't you know that 80% of statistics are made up?

Ha!  Okay, now I know that someone actually reads my long posts.  link From an article where a New Zealand Climatologist saying it is so.  I put that in there to see if anybody would challenge it.  It might be true but I searched for it and couldn't find any information.  I'd be curious to see what the real numbers are, although I suspect the numbers will vary because it depends on how much you count water vapor (since its also a greenhouse gas).

I'm going to read over the stuff you guys wrote and even take a gander at the IPCC stuff if I have a chance.  Good posts by both of you and I will get back to you.
2007-05-16 09:09:09
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7017|SE London

superfly_cox wrote:

I'd be curious to see what the real numbers are, although I suspect the numbers will vary because it depends on how much you count water vapor (since its also a greenhouse gas).
I don't think water vapour counts as a true greenhouse gas. It's yet another feedback mechanism.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-16 09:11:06)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard