Jump to content

Home

Climate Change: Are Humans to Blame?


SkinWalker
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's a lot harder to grow food in a frozen tundra than even a desert with modern water transport
There's more than just vegetables (anyway, diet up North is still mainly based on meat - don't get me started on the anti-sealhunting crap which was mainly started by some ultra-rich actors/singers who don't have to worry about whether or not they'll be able to eat tomorrow.).The houses and buildings which were build on permafrost are currently litterally falling apart and will all have to be replaced in the next 10-20 yrs at most. Polar bears get hungry and are no longer afraid to go looking for a "snack" were they're not supposed to...there are many other consequences too (environmental, political and other).

 

 

Just a few recent interesting articles:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/28/climate-change-poles

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090428154831.htm

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200904281032.htm

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i4cPhGKj5TvXToWQNF6WhGjLH5Tg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank you for the very pointed and specific counter-points to anthropogenic global warming. This is, at least, something that can be examined, if not empirically, then rationally.

 

CO2 is not the leading greenhouse emission. In fact it plays a relatively small role. Historically CO2 increases follow an increase in temperature, as a greater number of living creatures tends to increase the CO2 levels.
CO2 is the 2nd most abundant greenhouse gas after water vapor. Water vapor has always been with us, however, and is largely a fixed system (the quantity of water on the planet doesn't increase/decrease in quantities that are noticeable; vapor is relative and, at times, ablative as well as insulating, meaning that cloud-cover can reflect light from the sun as well as insulate radiative heat from the earth (Lindzen 1991; Ramanathan and Coakley 1978). Water vapor is a feedback rather than a forcing agent when it comes to greenhouse gases, this is primarily due to its residence in the atmosphere (about 10 days) when compared with CO2 (about a decade).

 

Water vapor is far more effective at trapping radiative heat.
Not apparently so due to its albedo effect as well as its trapping effect. Further, since our planet's greenhouse effect is an important and depended upon system where water vapor plays a relatively static and important role in a feedback system, the introduction of the second most abundant greenhouse gas is actually forcing the system, resulting in increased insulation and, thus, increased surface temperatures (Lindzen 2007; Ramanathan and Coakley 1978).

 

Global mean temp has historically been higher without man's assistance. In fact when it was at it's highest temps the Earth was going through an explosive growth of life.
True. However, during this period, the Earth's orbit was slightly different, thus the cause of this natural global warming was astronomical and is not occurring today. Moreover, this "growth period" was just following the Pleistocene and the sudden rise in water levels due to meltwater following the last glacial maximum and a return to warmth from sub-freezing temperatures in the northern hemisphere where these "historically higher" temperatures occurred. In addition, this effect was only in the summer (NOAA 2008).

 

Correlation does not imply causality.
Correlations do not imply causations, but strong correlations cannot be (and should not be) ignored. The correlation of CO2 increase to temperature increase is not casual based on the long-term trend associated with it. In addition, its demonstrated through empirical data that CO2, the second most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, results in radiative forcing (Lindzen 2007) where water vapor, the most abundant, does not. It adjusts relative humidity constantly.

 

And actually, we are pumping less pollutants into the atmosphere than in many phases of our civilization.

 

What are the data for this? Or is it simply a confidence statement?

 

Many of the models of global warming tend to ignore external causes. For example volcanic activity, which pumps as much CO2 into the air as every car running constantly for a year
Every study I've read so far includes this in the models from which data is derived. Indeed, the effects of volcanic activity include other aerosols than CO2 and it's been demonstrated that volcanic activity actually has a cooling effect (Soden et al 2002). Also, volcanic contributions to the atmosphere is on a decline (Meehl et al 2004).

 

Solar activity, which has already shown that it has a more dramatic effect on our temperatures.
Shown how and where? The sun always shines. We have an existing system to which new contributors are forcing increases. Why would mentioning solar activity be of consequence?

 

And the biggest problem with warming is that it makes money. You don't debunk what gets you the grants.
This is rhetoric and not a reasoned or logical argument. It commits the fallacies of assuming that science has no other research potential beyond climate research; that climate researchers wouldn't be motivated to be the first to demonstrate a new the alternative hypothesis; etc. I see no reason to bother with entertaining such politically motivated and undereducated poppycock.

 

 

References:

 

Lindzen, Richard S. (2007) Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously. Energy & Environment, 18(7/8), 937-950

 

Lindzen, Richard S. (1991). Review of: Climate change, the IPCC Scientific Assessment. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 117, 651-652.

 

Meehl, G.A., et al (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727.

 

NOAA (2008). The Mid-Holocene "Warm Period." National Climate Data Center, Found online at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

 

Ramanathan, V. and J. A. Coakley, Jr. (1978). Climate Modeling through Radiative-Convective Models. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 16: 465-490.

 

Soden, Brian J., et al (2002) Global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A test of climate feedback by water vapor. Science, 296(5568), 727-730.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know.. the conclusions would have more merit if they didn't say there was nothing else to account for the temperature variation

 

They ignore sunspot activity

Sunspot_Numbers.png

another one that seems to kinda mirror the hokey stick graph for temperature change

Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

 

But there's no other explanation other than man for the temperature change. Nope, none at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know.. the conclusions would have more merit if they didn't say there was nothing else to account for the temperature variation

 

But there's no other explanation other than man for the temperature change. Nope, none at all.

 

This is an uninformed statement and not factual. Please cite the study/studies that say this. You can begin by reviewing the ones I've cited already and noting that they do variously discuss sunspot activity and other causes beyond human activity. In fact, the point of several is to determine to what degree human activity plays a part.

 

Question: are you actually wanting to participate in intellectual and academic discourse on the topic or more interested in tossing out straw man arguments and political soundbites from the undereducated that are somehow threatened by academic inquiry and science?

 

If your answer is yes, please consider an analysis of the extent to which sunspot activity is a part of recent trend in global temperature increases, taking into account why these trends aren't reflected in past sunspot activity. Then consider ending by taking a moment to comment on the data presented in my last post where you appear to resort to uninformed soundbites that aren't backed by actual science.

 

Clearly the trend is for warming temperatures which is likely to have detrimental effects on the environment and economy as sea levels rise and agricultural regions experience extended drought. I'm still not sure to what extent human activity plays a part of it, but I still haven't come across data that are suggestive that global warming isn't anthropogenic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an uninformed statement and not factual. Please cite the study/studies that say this. You can begin by reviewing the ones I've cited already and noting that they do variously discuss sunspot activity and other causes beyond human activity. In fact, the point of several is to determine to what degree human activity plays a part.

 

Question: are you actually wanting to participate in intellectual and academic discourse on the topic or more interested in tossing out straw man arguments and political soundbites from the undereducated that are somehow threatened by academic inquiry and science?

 

If your answer is yes, please consider an analysis of the extent to which sunspot activity is a part of recent trend in global temperature increases, taking into account why these trends aren't reflected in past sunspot activity. Then consider ending by taking a moment to comment on the data presented in my last post where you appear to resort to uninformed soundbites that aren't backed by actual science.

 

Clearly the trend is for warming temperatures which is likely to have detrimental effects on the environment and economy as sea levels rise and agricultural regions experience extended drought. I'm still not sure to what extent human activity plays a part of it, but I still haven't come across data that are suggestive that global warming isn't anthropogenic.

 

Um... I got that from your own sources. Have you even read their conclusions? Lindsen even says in your first citation exactly what I pointed out.

 

Do you really want intelligent debate, or are you just going to continue throwing me CiteU babble?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course its mentioned in the studies that I cited. But have you actually analyzed the data or are you just comparing pretty pictures? Hint, go to the OP and look at the first graph and note where it says "solar." Compare with the rest.

 

No one is disputing that solar activity has nothing to do with global temperatures or that it isn't a factor. It just doesn't appear to be a factor as significant as increasing greenhouse emissions.

 

What I'm critical of is your irrational and uninformed accusation that researchers are considering or discussing causes outside of CO2, which is either an intellectually dishonest or ignorant accusation and I see no middle points to disrupt that dichotomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actual data are lacking in many of the studies. I think I remember even hearing one of the advocates had to provide his data. The computer algorithm used would have produced a hockey stick graph with stock market figures(Not saying they all do this, but it tends to look bad).

 

You almost seem to be claiming that anyone who does not share the belief in anthropogenic global warming is blasphemous....

 

One thing I was trying to state(though I think it may have gotten lost) is that it is entirely possible that the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature increase could be related but in the opposite causal relationship. increased temperatures make for more favorable conditions for animal life. More animal life, more CO2. So while CO2 may add to the greenhouse effect, it could be more of an effect than a cause.

 

Note: I'm quitting smoking, so the brain is functioning weirdly right now... It's threatening to kill my empathy if I don't give in to its demands...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will sound harsh, but I divide people into two - those who accept we're causing, or at the very least fuelling, global warming, and those who do not understand the subject. Pardon me, but there seems to be a lot of irrational thinking on the side of the deniers.

 

Ya know.. the conclusions would have more merit if they didn't say there was nothing else to account for the temperature variation
No one is saying humans are the only. Warming and cooling of environments have historically been caused by a multitude of factors. This time, however, evidence points to us as the culprit.

 

I wonder if the first human responsible for a forest fire defended himself with the same logic - "look, Urrg... listen, Aaarr, we've always had forest fires! They're natural! There's a multitudes of causes for them - drought, lightning, the gods... we've always accepted this! But now all of a sudden it's me?!".

 

Also of note, notice how they seem to be backing off the Global warming talk
Not that I have heard.

 

since the temps have actually gone DOWN these last few years.
This demonstrates again that you're not really familiar with the issue. No one is stating that temperatures will rise continuously everywhere on the whole Earth. Global warming means that the average global temperature will increase over a period of decades. This means that some places will get cooler, which may be just as devastating as warming in other areas. It means that you'll have a cold year here and a snowfall there, but the average temperature will increase. For an illustration, look at this number sequence:

 

3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 3, 2, 4, 5, 7, 4, 5, 6, 7, 6, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 6, 8, 11...

 

Clearly an increasing trend. The bolded numbers are instances in which the trend seems to have reverse, but looking at the whole sequence, it's obvious this isn't the case.

 

Oh wait... now it's Global Climate Change, since warming was easy enough to disprove.
False.

 

You almost seem to be claiming that anyone who does not share the belief in anthropogenic global warming is blasphemous....
No, that's the Creationists. Those who deny AGW are witches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will sound harsh, but I divide people into two - those who accept we're causing, or at the very least fuelling, global warming, and those who do not understand the subject. Pardon me, but there seems to be a lot of irrational thinking on the side of the deniers.

 

I see.. Paraphrasing... You're either in agreement with me, or you're an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, Climatologists, Geologists, Meteorologists with doctorates in their fields don't know much about AGW? Admittedly, I'm not an expert in any of the required fields, but then I highly doubt you are either. What I don't like is your false dichotomy. Essentially saying that in order to not believe in AGW you mustn't know about it.

 

Also considering that Antarctica's Ice concentration has INCREASED over the past 10 years...

 

January_1979-2009_antarctic_ice_concentration_extent.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate Change: Are Humans to Blame?

 

Probably, greenhouse gases caused by common emissions (car exhaust, water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide, etc.) are normal contributors. That's of course only substantial if you "believe" in Global Warming ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, Climatologists, Geologists, Meteorologists with doctorates in their fields don't know much about AGW? Admittedly, I'm not an expert in any of the required fields, but then I highly doubt you are either. What I don't like is your false dichotomy. Essentially saying that in order to not believe in AGW you mustn't know about it.

 

Also considering that Antarctica's Ice concentration has INCREASED over the past 10 years...

 

January_1979-2009_antarctic_ice_concentration_extent.jpg

 

On the other hand, Arctic sea ice has decreased 4.2%/decade since 1979.

 

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

 

 

It seems like both of our sources say there have been changes in both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents, which sounds strangely like climate change.

 

Even if it doesn't to you, I'm still not seeing a reason why we shouldn't reduce emissions anyway? The planet might be cool with all the **** we spew in to the air, but I don't think our own lungs are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it doesn't to you, I'm still not seeing a reason why we shouldn't reduce emissions anyway? The planet might be cool with all the **** we spew in to the air, but I don't think our own lungs are.

 

Read my earlier responses. We do enough crap to the planet as it is. Hell anyone who's gone fishing in a lake and caught the trash thrown in it, or the sheer volume of just flat out crappy air. I mean you fly into an airport and see the dingy yellow air. Absolutely I'm for cleaning up the air for better quality of life. I'm all for cleaning up the environment. I am not for this global warming scare tactic which is equivalent to the anti weed campaigns where they used exaggerations to convince people that they were doing wrong.

 

Nowhere am I claiming we shouldn't clean up our planet. Just that the global warming scare is not where we should be devoting our attention.

Because, naturally, there's such an overwhelming concensus:

 

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate/

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

http://canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1696

http://www.dailytech.com/A+Melting+Arctic+Happy+News+for+Mankind/article12882.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-sun-global-cooling.html (esp last pp)

 

toon012207.gif

 

Interestingly enough one of the scientists that happens to agree with that sentiment is Lindzen

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

 

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

 

But wait... didn't someone use him as a source FOR global warming?

Edited by Tommycat
darn citations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, Climatologists, Geologists, Meteorologists with doctorates in their fields don't know much about AGW?
The vast majority accept that the current situation is anthropogenic, so that doesn't really matter. There are probably biologists out there who for some reason or another state they don't believe in evolution, too.

 

Also considering that Antarctica's Ice concentration has INCREASED over the past 10 years...
Far as I know, this is to be expected due to increased precipitation (snowfall in Antarctica's case). Again, as I've already stated, AGW means that some areas get warmer while others get colder. Some areas of Antarctica, which is a large continent, are very likely growing in size, but others are experiencing accelerated melting, and the net result is a loss of ice. This is to be expected.

 

To my knowledge.

 

Classic Creationist argument - "there's no consensus, lots of scientists disagree, but the ones who don't follow the dogmas get silenced because {insert arbitrary theory here}". Same spear, new game.

 

You're making the mistake of looking at science as you do an organized religion, in which dogmas are laid down by authorities for religious and political reasons, and whoever tries to put forward new thoughts is punished or even kicked out of the church. This is the polar opposite of how scientists operate. Scientists, and anyone else using the scientific method, arrive at their conclusions by testing hypotheses, for then to do everything they can to disprove them. If someone tomorrow was to utterly and completely shoot down the scientific notion that the Earth is flat, the Theory of Evolution is real, or that the Earth orbits the Sun, he'd be awarded a Nobel prize and remembered as a genius.

 

I don't know who the "inquisition" in your cartoon represents, but if it's scientists, the cartoon simply has no backing in reality.

 

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
OK, let's accept, for the sake of discussion, that if you do produce results contrary to AGW, you lose your funding? Question then is - why? Just because they disagree with the established dogma? Highly unlikely in my ears. A far more believable scenario is that their research turns out to not be sound. Edited by Dagobahn Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classic Creationist argument - "there's no consensus, lots of scientists disagree, but the ones who don't follow the dogmas get silence because {insert arbitrary theory here}". Same spear, new game.
See: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

 

I don't know who the "inquisition" in your cartoon represents, but if it's scientists, the cartoon simply has no backing in reality.
That cartoonist contributes to a local right-wing rag trying to pass itself off as unbiased journalism (aka The Arizona Republic). I've heard his stuff is good for yucks, but it's little more than propaganda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, let's accept, for the sake of discussion, that if you do produce results contrary to AGW, you lose your funding? Question then is - why? Just because they disagree with the established dogma? Highly unlikely in my ears. A far more believable scenario is that their research turns out to not be sound.

 

Using that kind of "logic", any group that breaks off or is cast aside by the majority is guilty of similiar offenses. Guess you'd have come down on the side of the Catholic Church in its time for rejecting new/differing scientific theories b/c they didn't fit the reigning orthodoxy (think Galileo, et all..).:raise:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was Ken Miller who put it best, "A lack of consensus does not mean there's a controversy".

 

What's fun is to find out which scientists (and "scientists") are opposed to a position and then start doing some homework. Who is funding their research? Who is writing them checks? Are they publishing papers hoping to show that there is no climate change while sitting on an advisory board for Exxon, etc?

 

This is why appeals to authority don't work. First off, even experts can be wrong. Second off, sometimes "experts" can be bought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's fun is to find out which scientists (and "scientists") are opposed to a position and then start doing some homework. Who is funding their research? Who is writing them checks? Are they publishing papers hoping to show that there is no climate change while sitting on an advisory board for Exxon, etc?

 

This is why appeals to authority don't work. First off, even experts can be wrong. Second off, sometimes "experts" can be bought.

 

Yeah, would be interesting to look at the political and philosophical leanings, as well as financial backing of the alarmists. Careful, achilles, that argument, as you well know, cuts both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...