New information surrounding global warming

[ki4jgt]

First story, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350415/description/News_in_Brief_Warming_may_not_release_Arctic_carbo n

Second Story, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350415/description/News_in_Brief_Warming_may_not_release_Arctic_carbo n

[Frogs Hair]

Thanks for the article. Global warming = politics in my part of the country , so I will leave well enough alone.

[tgalati4]

This is good news. More plant decay in the Artic means more oil, which means cheaper gasoline, which means more SUV's on the road. Win-Win.

[ki4jgt]

I don't see that as a Win-Win even if global warming wasn't true, you still have all the smog and whatnot.

[cariboo]

New vehicles emit much less smog, than they did even just 5 years ago, so much so that the PTB (http://www.internetslang.com/PTB-meaning-definition.asp) here in British Columbia have closed all the smog testing stations. That being said, they haven't abolished the Carbon Tax yet

[jockyburns]

It's a real shame our politicians are so greedy for money, they bought into the scam that is "Climate Change". Used to be called"Global Warming" until the scientists realised the planet wasn't actually getting any warmer (to any great degree) Here in the UK they predicted we'd be having summers as hot as the Mediterranean, within years. Simply hasn't materialised (we've just had the coldest Spring for 50 yrs ) Yeah bring it on,,, Can't wait to be wearing shorts and a T shirt in December. (although I can't see that, unless I go abroad for Christmas) :D

[cprofitt]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun.html

Another interesting read... it at least points to their being other factors involved with climate change.

[malakbal]

Anti-matter will probably kill us before global warming

[Paqman]

This is good news. More plant decay in the Artic means more oil, which means cheaper gasoline, which means more SUV's on the road. Win-Win.

Sure, you just have to park up your SUV and wait a few million years for the big geological machine to cycle that biomass into oil and gas. So you might want to cue up a few tracks on the stereo, you've got a bit of a wait.


Here in the UK they predicted we'd be having summers as hot as the Mediterranean, within years.

No they didn't. Numskull scandal rags like the Daily Fail make money running sensationalist headlines about climate change, but the science is a bit more reality-based.


Can't wait to be wearing shorts and a T shirt in December.

This is an oft-repeated and entirely ignorant sentiment. The atmosphere is a big machine that runs on heat. Adding more heat to it is like pressing the accelerator on a car. Increased global mean temps won't mean everywhere gets nicer weather, it means everywhere gets more weather. Sure, sometimes that weather will be nice, but sometimes it'll be bad. Global warming means bigger storms, more rain, more wind, etc, etc. Weather patterns will change, which means some places are getting warmer, some colder, and some a bit of both. It's not as simplistic as warm = sunny.

There's no question the global mean temp is rising, and IMO the science is pretty sound regarding the cause. Unfortunately political interests have hijacked the discussion and muddied the waters, making this a bit of a dodgy topic. That's a shame, as it's an important phenomenon that we should be making clear, rational, evidence-based decisions about.

[Paqman]

Anti-matter will probably kill us before global warming

How so? There's not really enough of it about to pose any threat. One of the nice oddities about the universe, that.

[QIII]

How so? There's not really enough of it about to pose any threat. One of the nice oddities about the universe, that.

I just read an article indicating that there may be very much more of it lying around than previously expected.

[Paqman]

I just read an article indicating that there may be very much more of it lying around than previously expected.

That might be good news in a way, the fact that there's so little of it about is one of the big unsolved problems of science. There doesn't seem to be any real explanation for why the universe is almost entirely matter.

Certainly we're not likely to endanger ourselves with it. If you took all the antimatter ever created by science, put it in one place and let it blow it would release about as much energy as striking a match.

[QIII]

Which would, of course, exacerbate climate change...

:)

[Paqman]

Which would, of course, exacerbate climate change...

:)

OMG, we're all going to die!

[Elfy]

OMG, we're all going to die!

Don't panic - I bought 2 hats last time I read a thread in here so you can borrow the spare ;)

[neu5eeCh]

Anti-matter will probably kill us before global warming

Whenever I read comments like these (and denialist comments in general) I never know whether to treat them seriously or as sarcasm.

To deny climate change and global warming, at this point, can only be called willful ignorance. It's no different than insisting that the sun orbits the earth, that the earth is flat, or that dinosaurs couldn't fit on the ark. Politics has nothing to do with it. You either know the science or you don't.

The really interesting thing is to go back in time and see what happened to the earth the last time CO2 levels reached levels like these. It wasn't pretty. Denialists can brush off notions of mass extinctions (which humans would be hard-pressed to survive) but this is precisely what happened.

Consider this (http://planetsave.com/2011/11/18/co2-increase-linked-to-worlds-largest-extinction/) about the Permian Extinction:

"While the causes of this global catastrophe are unknown, an MIT-led team of researchers has now established that the end-Permian extinction was extremely rapid, triggering massive die-outs both in the oceans and on land in less than 20,000 years — the blink of an eye in geologic time. The researchers also found that this time period coincides with a massive buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which likely triggered the simultaneous collapse of species in the oceans and on land."

And consider this (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/349248/description/Kansas__was_unbearably_hot_270_million_years_ago) recent and suggestive finding:

"The Permian period was hot, hot, hot: Around 270 million years ago, air temperatures near the equator may have soared to almost 74º Celsius or 165º Fahrenheit, scientists report March 18 in Geology. That’s far hotter than anywhere on Earth today."

Sea levels, as it turns out, were not 5 feet, or 16 feet, or 25 feet, or 38 feet, or 50 or 60 or 70, but 80 to 90 feet higher than today.We're not talking about the disappearance of a few coastlines. These things actually happened and it's the very pinnacle of scientific ignorance to think they can't happen again.

As God once asked Bill Cosby, "How long can you tread water?"

At this point, the only way out of this mess is to actively reduce CO2 levels, not just passively, but comprehending this necessity just isn't here yet. But it will be. Guaranteed. No doubt about it. :popcorn:

[Dry Lips]

First story, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350415/description/News_in_Brief_Warming_may_not_release_Arctic_carbo n

Second Story, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350415/description/News_in_Brief_Warming_may_not_release_Arctic_carbo n


Does this only study concern Carbon dioxide? When people talk about greenhouse gases released as a result of global warming, they usually refer to Methane, which is a greenhouse gas many times as powerful as CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release

[neu5eeCh]

Does this only study concern Carbon dioxide? When people talk about greenhouse gases released as a result of global warming, they usually refer to Methane, which is a greenhouse gas many times as powerful as CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release

In the case of the Permian Extinction, there's compelling evidence suggesting that the warming caused by CO2 led to the massive release of methane trapped in the seafloor. Reason: The die off of land animals apparently preceded sea-life. Sea life shouldn't have suffered the same die off, but fossilization mirrors what one would expect due to massive releases of underwater methane (which robs oxygen from the water). There's a series you can find on Youtube called "Catastrophe", here's Snowball Earth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV4EirRu6bA). The third, I think, is where you will find the latest research on the Permian Extinction.

Everything that's going to happen if human beings don't change their behavior has already happened before. O:) It's all written in the rocks.

[cprofitt]

In the case of the Permian Extinction, there's compelling evidence suggesting that the warming caused by CO2 led to the massive release of methane trapped in the seafloor. Reason: The die off of land animals apparently preceded sea-life. Sea life shouldn't have suffered the same die off, but fossilization mirrors what one would expect due to massive releases of underwater methane (which robs oxygen from the water). There's a series you can find on Youtube called "Catastrophe", here's Snowball Earth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV4EirRu6bA). The third, I think, is where you will find the latest research on the Permian Extinction.

Everything that's going to happen if human beings don't change their behavior has already happened before. http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/eusa_angel.gif It's all written in the rocks.

So, you are telling me that the permian life forms did not change their behavior and it led to their extinction?

I firmly believe that man should do what it can to not 'add' to any natural cycle of warming or cooling, but I am still not sold that man is the cause. The Permian extinction supports both the fact that 'we have an issue' and the fact that it might not be caused by man.

There are articles talking about the sun being part of the cause:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global/
http://wakeup-world.com/2011/09/02/c-e-r-n-scientific-study-concludes-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-sun/

There are of course articles disputing those above.

What impact does the change in the earth's rotation have?
What about the Earth's orbit... I have read that it is getting further from the sun.

There are a great many factors... playing the 'blame' game just makes people argue the point. Simply stating that global warming is happening and that it is bad is enough. Then identify what man might be able to do to slow the process down.

[jockyburns]

Everything that's going to happen if human beings don't change their behavior has already happened before. O:) It's all written in the rocks.

Can you explain what the dinosaurs etc did to cause this global warming , during the Permian period? Yep I'm a bit sceptical about "Man made" climate change. I reckon it's a cyclical thing , over which we have very little (if any) control whatsoever. However, our politicians will find a way to extract even more money from us, meanwhile.

PS I see a lot of governments have introduced a so called "Carbon Tax" Very apt that all life on earth is carbon based then isn't it.

[neu5eeCh]

So, you are telling me that the permian life forms did not change their behavior and it led to their extinction?

What do you think? I guess all those permian denialists won the argument, right?


I firmly believe that man should do what it can to not 'add' to any natural cycle of warming or cooling, but I am still not sold that man is the cause.

The current levels of CO2 are entirely man made. The evidence for this is as solid as a heliocentric solar system. If you don't know this already, then clearly it would be a waste of my time to point you to the evidence.


The Permian extinction supports both the fact that 'we have an issue' and the fact that it might not be caused by man.

No. It supports the fact that CO2 levels change our climate, but it does not, in any way, support denialist claims that current CO2 levels aren't man made.



There are articles talking about the sun being part of the cause:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global/
http://wakeup-world.com/2011/09/02/c-e-r-n-scientific-study-concludes-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-sun/

Really? Fox News? Your first link is from Fox News? The channel that claimed that Germany's solar industry (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/07/fox_news_expert_on_solar_energy_germany_gets_a_lot _more_sun_than_we_do_video.html) is possible because it's one of the sunniest nations on earth? I mean... Really? And your second article is from a web site that lists, among other interests, "Multidimensionality?" or "Aliens and Ancient Engineers"?



Might the tools and technology of ancient builders have come from distant galaxies?
Evidence suggests that an ancient mountaintop fortress in Peru was constructed with laser-like tools.
Temples at Vijayanagara India were built to harness cosmic energy.
An acoustic chamber in Malta enabled interplanetary communication.
If the ancient builders did use advanced technology, could it prove that aliens visited Earth thousands of years ago?


Right.

So, the first thing I would recommend is to recognize reliable sources when you see them. The only way to do that is to learn (or familiarize yourself with) the science behind the stories. For instance, I know that Phil Plait, of Bad Astronomy, knows his science and reports responsibility because I understand the science behind his reporting. He also reports the facts. Here is what he has to say (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/) about your articles:

"this study shows that under the conditions of the experiment, the effect of cosmic rays by themselves is too low to trigger cloud formation at the rates actually seen in our atmosphere. What is very clear is that any claims at this time that cosmic rays definitely affect global warming are baloney. As the authors of the experiment say, this is a good first step but there’s a long way to go to understand this problem, and as the website PhysOrg reiterates (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-cern-cloud-team-pieces-puzzle.html), "Though this most recent experiment doesn’t really answer the question of whether cosmic rays are having an impact on our weather, it does open the door to more research."




There are of course articles disputing those above.

No, there aren't. There are articles that debunk those above. There's a difference. We're not talking about two equally valid viewpoints that can enter into a "dispute". Science doesn't work that way. One is factual and one is not. One is evidence based and one is not.


What impact does the change in the earth's rotation have?

None that need concern us. The earth has been slowing down ever since it was created. It's tied into the reason the moon is further away today than yesterday.


What about the Earth's orbit... I have read that it is getting further from the sun.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/01/03/at-the-bottom-of-earths-orbit/


There are a great many factors... playing the 'blame' game just makes people argue the point.

Science isn't a blame game. Science is about gathering the evidence and drawing conclusions based on that evidence. Denialists might try to frame it as a "blame game", but that's just more denial. it's about the evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. And the evidence conclusively ties humanity to the increase in CO2. Period.

[neu5eeCh]

Can you explain what the dinosaurs etc did to cause this global warming , during the Permian period?

is that a trick question? Because, you know, there weren't any dinosaurs around during the Permian period.

Moving on...


Yep I'm a bit sceptical about "Man made" climate change. I reckon it's a cyclical thing , over which we have very little (if any) control whatsoever.

Is climate change cyclical? Yes. What has caused climate change in the past? CO2 concentrations. Does the current spike in CO2 coincide with that "cyclical thing"? No. No. And no.

So, where is the CO2 coming from? What has knocked the earth out of its usual cycle? The evidence points conclusively to mankind.


However, our politicians will find a way to extract even more money from us, meanwhile.

Scientific evidence is not political. The only question worth answering is this: How do we reduce the spike in CO2 (that we have created)?


PS I see a lot of governments have introduced a so called "Carbon Tax" Very apt that all life on earth is carbon based then isn't it.

It's not a political issue. The question is this: Would a carbon tax reduce CO2 emissions? If yes, then it's a good thing. If no, then it's a bad thing. What does the evidence suggest? That's all that matters. We need evidence based solutions and lawmaking. Whether those evidence based solutions come from the left or right is irrelevant. Good science is good science.

[Copper Bezel]

Should be noted that methane is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, but that it also cycles out of the atmosphere naturally in a way that CO2 doesn't.

As for terminology: it's not that global warming is an inaccurate description of one element of global climate change, but it's just one part. While my understanding was that the politics had worked the other way - that opponents to action thought climate change a less ominous term than global warming and adjusted accordingly - the former is simply a more accurate term no matter what stance or politics it's coming from. NASA (http://So, you are telling me that the permian life forms did not change their behavior and it led to their extinction?[/quote]

It isn't as funny in the Permian, since the life forms we consider to have been the "dominant" ones had nothing to do with the climate change that killed them. The Oxygen (http://[URL="http://[URL") Catastrophe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event) offers up a much more ironic parallel.


I firmly believe that man should do what it can to not 'add' to any natural cycle of warming or cooling, but I am still not sold that man is the cause. The Permian extinction supports both the fact that 'we have an issue' and the fract that it might not be caused by man.

There are articles talking about the sun being part of the cause:
[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/...ole-in-global/http://wakeup-world.com/2011/09/02/c...ed-by-the-sun/

There are of course articles disputing those above.

What impact does the change in the earth's rotation have?
What about the Earth's orbit... I have read that it is getting further from the sun.

There are a great many factors... playing the 'blame' game just makes people argue the point. Simply stating that global warming is happening and that it is bad is enough. Then identify what man might be able to do to slow the process down.

VTPoet nicely addressed each of your individual points here, but I think that one thing to really consider is that long-term causes are not likely to effect sudden inflections like the one we've seen. We still don't really know what caused the changes at the end of the Permian, but we don't look to changes in the sun's radiation or the Earth's orbit; there are possibilities in volcanic activity and, as always, the possibility of an impact of some kind (which wouldn't leave a crater we could see; thanks to ongoing subduction of non-continental crust, the sea floor is much younger than the Permian.)

[cprofitt]

VTPoet and Copper Bezel... I think you both missed my point. I was not clear in the first one... I think man has an impact, but I am not able to say that man is the sole cause.

Let me be a bit more clear. I do think we have a problem. I do not think it matters if man is the sole cause or just one factor in it; the world needs to reduce any impact man has on the process.

Copper Bezel:
Yes, the Permian extinction could have been caused by an impact or volcanic activity. My point about rotation and orbit is just to show that there are other factors that may be adding to the problem -- I truly doubt anyone of them is the root. The one piece that I do believe points to man is the fact that the temperature has continued to rise even after the sun activity has gone down... over time, to my understanding, the two have been closely related.

For the record the source I try to look at most is:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html

[Frogs Hair]

Science is science and contributing to an increasing understanding of what is being investigated is not political , How science is interpreted by those who make socioeconomic and environmental regulatory policy as it relates to climate change is political .

[cprofitt]

Science is science and contributing to an increasing understanding of what is being investigated is not political , How science is interpreted by those who make socioeconomic and environmental regulatory policy as it relates to climate change is political . Yes, the one problem we have though... is that the published science has to go through politics to be published.

[cortman]

Politics.

Nobel Prize-winning scientist Ivar Giaever put it best, in my opinion- "Global warming has become a new religion." (citation (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9))
Random fact: water vapor is a far more effective radiative than even the most vilified bugaboo; Co2- its contribution to the greenhouse effect is over double that of Co2. (citation (http://web.archive.org/web/20060330013311/http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf))
Seems to me the real problem is all this water laying around the place! Stop the water cycle! :p

Oh, and-



Consider this (http://planetsave.com/2011/11/18/co2-increase-linked-to-worlds-largest-extinction/) about the Permian Extinction:


Planetsave.com? You can hardly claim unbiased citation, and therefore I don't see much validity in your protestations against citing Fox News. Especially when I am greeted with the headline "Rat On Mars — NASA’s Mars Rover Curiosity Captures “Rat” In New Image" on the front page of Planetsave. :rolleyes:

[dwaite]

Random fact: water vapor is a far more effective radiative than even the most vilified bugaboo; Co2- its contribution to the greenhouse effect is over double that of Co2. (citation (http://web.archive.org/web/20060330013311/http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf))
Seems to me the real problem is all this water laying around the place! Stop the water cycle! :p



Humans release 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year. We don't do that with water. Even if methane/water/other are stronger greenhouse gases than CO2, CO2 is the one we're pushing out the most, and so the one that gets focused on.(http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm)

Your logic is akin to making a list of the 10 most deadly poisons, then saying it's safe to consume entries 2 - 10, because they aren't the MOST harmful. Strongest != only.

[cprofitt]

dwaite:

Agreed even if man is not #1 we should seek to cut down our impact.

Here is some other data on the web:

Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's greenhouse (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/question746.htm) gases. A significant portion of these emissions come from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/global-warming.htm), is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.


Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. In any case, that's a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/ozone-pollution.htm) produced by a car (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car.htm) in a day.


In New Zealand (http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/399596:0), where cattle and sheep farming are major industries, 34 percent of greenhouse gases come from livestock.
source (http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm)


Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions
source (http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html)

[Sam Mills]

Increased global mean temps won't mean everywhere gets nicer weather, it means everywhere gets more weather. Sure, sometimes that weather will be nice, but sometimes it'll be bad. Global warming means bigger storms, more rain, more wind, etc, etc. Weather patterns will change, which means some places are getting warmer, some colder, and some a bit of both. It's not as simplistic as warm = sunny.


Yeah, I think that's something that some people don't understand. Some places that are normally warm will get very cold at times. Global warming doesn't mean that the whole planet will get hot.

[neu5eeCh]

Nobel Prize-winning scientist Ivar Giaever put it best, in my opinion- "Global warming has become a new religion." (citation (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9))

98% of climate scientist agree on the climate change and global warming. Why? Because that's the science. That's the evidence. That's the facts. Citing a report by a party hack driven by politics is not science.



Random fact: water vapor is a far more effective radiative than even the most vilified bugaboo; Co2- its contribution to the greenhouse effect is over double that of Co2. (citation (http://web.archive.org/web/20060330013311/http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf))
Seems to me the real problem is all this water laying around the place! Stop the water cycle! :p

Yeah, and? What does that have to do with CO2? All that gasoline being spilling in your livingroom? Don't worry about it, Cortman. Just be glad it's not Nitroglycerin because, you know, nitroglycerin is a far more effective explosive than even the most vilified gasoline! Have a cigarette! LOL! :D


Planetsave.com? You can hardly claim unbiased citation...

Yes I can. That's the beauty of science. You can spout off all you want (called FUD by the way) but prove it. If a scientist makes an assertion, test it. You think planetsave is just as biased as Fox News? Let's test it. Let's compare the facts as reported by both organizations. I'm willing to do it just for the sheer entertainment. Go ahead. Make my day. :popcorn:

[Copper Bezel]

Yeah, and? What does that have to do with CO2? All that gasoline being spilling in your livingroom? Don't worry about it, Cortman. Just be glad it's not Nitroglycerin because, you know, nitroglycerin is a far more effective explosive than even the most vilified gasoline! Have a cigarette! LOL! :grin:
Well, more to the point, the amount or effect of water vapor isn't the thing we're changing, we wouldn't to change levels if we could for a lot of other reasons, and it's doing exactly what we need it to be doing as it is. We also wouldn't want CO2 levels to be 150 ppm any more than we want them to be 400 ppm.

So it's more like saying, sure, your house is on fire, but you were already heating it up by running the furnace, so you wanted it hot, right? Here you go.

[cortman]

98% of climate scientist agree on the climate change and global warming.


Citation?
How about I do that for you: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf :)
Peter Doran & Maggie Zimmerman of University of Illinois conducted the survey of 10,257 earth scientists that is the basis for your "98%" figure. Of those 10,257, a little over 3000 responded. Of those they picked 79 individuals who were successful in getting over half their papers published by climate science journals. Of those 79, 76 agreed that global temperatures have risen since 1800. That's where your 98% number comes from. 76 of 79 people. In 2009. Before you call FUD, read the survey- it's all there.

How about this? http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
A public poll/petition rejecting global warming and climate change. Currently 9,029 scientists with Ph.D have signed- 3,805 of which are climate specialists. In light of the 3,146 climate scientists that responded to the "98% poll", I would cast grave doubts on the truth of your statement.



Why? Because that's the science. That's the evidence. That's the facts. Citing a report by a party hack driven by politics is not science.


Before a blood vessel is burst here, do understand that Ivar Giaever was stating his *opinion* and that my *opinion* coincides with his *opinion*.



Yeah, and? What does that have to do with CO2? All that gasoline being spilling in your livingroom? Don't worry about it, Cortman. Just be glad it's not Nitroglycerin because, you know, nitroglycerin is a far more effective explosive than even the most vilified gasoline! Have a cigarette! LOL! :D


My point is that the CO2 craze is driven by politics- even though water vapor accounts for far more of the greenhouse effect than CO2 (see my citation in previous post) there is absolutely nothing we can or should do about it- it's obviously been going and taking care of itself, not to mention is of some importance to the planet. Since humans produce CO2, there is something to grab onto (and in the case of most governments, tax). The whole hype is political- if you try to point out the fallacy of it, you obviously don't care about the environment.



Yes I can. That's the beauty of science.

No, you cannot. My point was that Planetsave.com is obviously biased TOWARD belief in global warming/climate change, just as some people in Fox News are biased AGAINST belief in global warming. Please don't try to deny that, lol.



You can spout off all you want (called FUD by the way) but prove it. If a scientist makes an assertion, test it. You think planetsave is just as biased as Fox News? Let's test it.


I proved my points by citing actual papers and publications, not news sources. I would posit that that's better proof than citing either Planetsave.com OR Fox news.



Let's compare the facts as reported by both organizations. I'm willing to do it just for the sheer entertainment. Go ahead. Make my day. :popcorn:


Rather than take you up on that, I would offer you a piece of advice from Mark Twain- "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" :D

[dwaite]

Citation?&lt;br&gt;<br>
How about this? &lt;a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br>
A public poll/petition rejecting global warming and climate change. Currently 9,029 scientists with Ph.D have signed- 3,805 of which are climate specialists. In light of the 3,146 climate scientists that responded to the "98% poll", I would cast grave doubts on the truth of your statement.&lt;br&gt;<br>

I'll give you this - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/. Now, to be fair it only reports a ~97% agreement, but since it's based on actual research papers and not some guys opinion poll on the internet, I'm going to go ahead and say it trumps.



Rather than take you up on that, I would offer you a piece of advice from Mark Twain- "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"

Soneone challenges you to a debate based on facts, and you respond saying that you don't think CO2 is important, and that it'll all sort itself out in the end - a position not supported by any facts - then say it's not worth debating further and duck out before someone calls you out on it. We can all see who the fool is here...

[cortman]

I'll give you this - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/. Now, to be fair it only reports a ~97% agreement, but since it's based on actual research papers and not some guys opinion poll on the internet, I'm going to go ahead and say it trumps.


Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any actual figures as to number of people queried, etc. Which was what I was pointing out in my previous post (and the whole reason for pointing it out)



Soneone challenges you to a debate based on facts, and you respond saying that you don't think CO2 is important, and that it'll all sort itself out in the end - a position not supported by any facts - then say it's not worth debating further and duck out before someone calls you out on it.

Like I said, I think Giaever put it best- it's a new religion, and people take religion very seriously and personally. Arguing over religion is pointless at best, and at worst can cause a lot of problems (hm, that's why religion as a topic is banned in these forums?)
Also, the challenge was to prove the comparitive objectivity of planetsave.com and Fox news- not a debate I want to get into (for sure not on a GNU/Linux support forum)



We can all see who the fool is here...


Indeed- let me be the first to admit that I am not an environmental scientist, just some guy on an online forums. :)
The quote is tongue-in-cheek- my implication was that if we persisted in a envireligious bashing contest we would probably both make ourselves look foolish. :)

[dwaite]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any actual figures as to number of people queried, etc. Which was what I was pointing out in my previous post (and the whole reason for pointing it out)

Well...that's kind of the point. This paper didn't query people, it looked at the findings of published scientific papers to build a consensus. You may have to read the methods section to get the exact numbers involved - this is a scientific article, not a blog or media publication.

As to relevance, you seemed to be conflating the previous comment about the 98% scientists consensus with lay-people, and then showing random surveys to back it up (that 98% number comes from a paper in Nature - I could find it for you if you like, but it's probably behind a paywall unless you or your work/university/school have a subscription). I felt this was a much more objective way of showing the point, because this paper summarises ALL the current RESEARCH on the topic. It did not study people and their opinions, it studied scientific results and findings of reserach in the field. Whether you identify as a religious nut, tree-hugger, or oil-paid talking head - this paper reports THE SCIENCE on the topic. If you're shown that 97% of the relevant research points to a single conclusion, then waving your hands and calling it peoples personal religion is just silly. It's qualitatively no different than the tactics used in creationism, anti-vaxination, or moon-landing conspiracy theories.

I certainly don't deny there are plenty of people out there claiming that the world will be a barren desert by 2050, with a mean global temperature of 50 degrees, and we'll all be dead because we used too much plastic or whatever it is that they're saying now. But within the context of this thread, that's not what you're arguing with.

At the end of the day though, you're right. We're 2 dudes arguing on an internet forum. I'm pretty sure there's an xkcd comic about this... :D

[llanitedave]

Anyone who argues in this day and age that the planet is not warming, or that human-induced CO2 and methane production are not the cause of the warming that does exist, is an idiot. Simple as that.

However, that doesn't help in the discussion of what to do about it. I don't think it can be argued that returning CO2 levels to prehuman quantities is going to return the climate to some stable, edenic state. Glacial cycles seem to be controlled by Milankovitch cycles (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html), but those three independent variations don't occur in phase with each other, so the response is very complex. There's a pretty good argument that, if not for global warming, Earth might be slipping towards another glacial cycle already.

If that's the case, would lowering CO2 emissions send us back to the ice age? There are so many other factors in play here as well -- the amount of oxygen-producing forest and ocean algae, the amount of space cleared for agriculture or paved with asphalt or concrete, the amount of sediment entering the oceans...

Understanding the climate is a huge challenge, and trying to control it is going to be impossible. Just because we caused the problem does not mean we can solve it, especially at our current levels of understanding. This is going to be harder than anyone appreciates.

[Sef]

This thread seems have run its course, and is close to / has crossed the line into politics, so closed.