How Credible is This "Global Warming?"

[Mr. DJ]

I want them to define "one square of toilet paper" cause I'm possibly taking it too literally...

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by harmonious

The temperature of the planet has been chaotically fluctuating for as long as it has existed. The sun fluctuates, ocean currents change, volcanoes erupt; it is impossible to really predict what is going to happen with our climate.

If that were the case scientist would hardly waste their career on predicting it. A standard test of any climate model is to test it against climate changes in the past before one makes predictions about the future.

Originally Posted by harmonious

More and more the last few years scientists have been inching away from global warming to simply the ambiguous term climate change. So now if the temperature of the planet goes up, it's all our fault and if it goes down, it is all our fault.

Global warming leads to climate change. There is no inching away at all. If anything, the term stresses the fact that we can expect worse things than it simply getting a few degrees warmer. The Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme added "Global Warming" as a keyword to classify scientific papers only recently BTW (in 2006). Before the relevant keyword was "Hydrospheric and atmospheric geophysics - Global change". Looks like the opposite of inching away to me.

Originally Posted by harmonious

It is completely ridiculous and laughable.

How would you characterize the attempt to disprove the scientific consensus in an anime forum then?

Originally Posted by harmonious

Not all scientists are on board with global warming.

[...]

Some don't believe humans have an effect on climate whether the earth is heating up or not.

Some scientists believe we cause global warming and that it is beneficial to us; higher Earth temperatures increase life on the planet which allow to feed our ever growing population. Some argue that we are due for an ice age and a warmer temperature is necessary to delay it. Both of them argue that if you stop all the CO2 production it could very well be harmful to us.

The fact is, it is not cut and dry. There are many scientists with many differing opinions.

So please provide us with
1. their names
2. their scientific CVs
3. a list of their on-topic publications in peer-reviewed journals

Originally Posted by harmonious

as is so pushed by our mainstream media.

The mainstream media is interested in show. What they do not want is a panel of distinguished scientists that agree on the reality on global warming and go back to their studies. What they do want is at least one crackpot in the round blaming global warming on the Big Jewish Conspiracy or w/e. No wonder there is much less consensus in the mainstream media about global warming than in scientific circles. No pushing.

Originally Posted by harmonious

What we do know is that now it is a lucrative business. There is a lot of funding going into the scientific field to prove global warming is happening.

Not long ago -and probably still- publishing about global warming was the best way to lose your funding in many countries, most notably in the US.

Originally Posted by harmonious

There is a lot of money to be made in the new established carbon credits which Al Gore has his hands in.

Carbon emission rights are granted by the government and given to the carbon producing industries. Now Al Gore is some mere ex-US-presidental candidate and probably hated by both the US government and the carbon producers. So how does he come into play? As far as I know the only working carbon credit scheme so far is in the EU, by the way.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by harmonious

The temperature of the planet has been chaotically fluctuating for as long as it has existed. The sun fluctuates, ocean currents change, volcanoes erupt; it is impossible to really predict what is going to happen with our climate.

First error. Understanding the mechanics of non-linear systems - we don't necessarily know *which* state the system will tip into, but we can determine that the change will be chaotic and violent until it reaches the new regime of stability. And.. that new region of stability may be unpleasant. No, the weather cannot be "predicted" on a local level more than a few days out - that is fundamental to nonlinear systems. However, the phase space (the complete system description) is computable and standard textbooks are available to anyone who wants to understand how the math works.

More and more the last few years scientists have been inching away from global warming to simply the ambiguous term climate change. So now if the temperature of the planet goes up, it's all our fault and if it goes down, it is all our fault. It is completely ridiculous and laughable.

You're confusing scientists with celebrities, politicians, and idiots. There are plenty of the latter on both sides. You're also committing some hyperbole which is going to make it difficult to discuss the topic. "Climate change" isn't ambiguous but it isn't much better -- it is the term for our global weather system reaching a so-called "tipping point" at which the system radically and quickly shifts into a new region of stability. That the press latched onto "global warming" just exemplifies that the press needs to go to science classes as well. Slice_of_Life covers this already. And when the press says "climate change' they're also as clueless as they are when using the term "big bang" (neither big nor a bang at the time). Scientists can have a knack for naming concepts in a way that makes sense to them but not to laypeople.

Not all scientists are on board with global warming as is so pushed by our mainstream media. Some don't believe humans have an effect on climate whether the earth is heating up or not.

Note the sudden lack of numbers here..... if 2 scientists dispute the whole concept, and 98 look at the evidence and have a variety of levels of agreement..... that constitutes "some scientists". A scientist working for Exxon is just not going to have a lot of credibility on this topic... much like the scientists at Phillip Morris on the topic of tobacco.

Some scientists believe we cause global warming and that it is beneficial to us; higher Earth temperatures increase life on the planet which allow to feed our ever growing population. Some argue that we are due for an ice age and a warmer temperature is necessary to delay it. Both of them argue that if you stop all the CO2 production it could very well be harmful to us.

More of this "some" talk.... they might be "scientists" but most agricultural experts and health policy people will call them "idiots" between the impact on the agricultural world, the expansion of tropical diseases --- read "economic and public disasters". Think the illegal immigration issues are bad now?

How are we "due for an ice age"??????? ......... O.o and now, is the world warming due to CO2 and other gasses or not?

Some scientists argue that while global warming is happening, the effects are slow and the cost to derail it would do more damage than it would help. It would be far cheaper to adapt than it would be to derail it.

Again with the "some"....

However, *this* argument has some traction to it. There are scientists who contend it is already too late - that we're in the whirlpool to the next stability region. Its just time to deal with it -- which still takes a huge international effort and lots of $$$. Either preventative or reactionary, still lots of $$$. But most people who have done project work know that 'preventative' costs less than 'reactionary'.

The fact is, it is not cut and dry. There are many scientists with many differing opinions.

Yes, and nearly *all* of them agree we have a problem with our treatment of the sandbox we live in. The level of response suggested varies but nearly *all* of them conclude that governments and people need to make change. "Cut and dried" is a layman term... nothing in science is ever "cut and dried". There's probably a scientist out there still arguing the earth-centered solar system model has value.

What we do know is that now it is a lucrative business. There is a lot of funding going into the scientific field to prove global warming is happening. There is a lot of money to be made in the new established carbon credits which Al Gore has his hands in.

There's been a HUGE lucrative business invested in ignoring the problem for the last 40 years .... point? A *fact* is that there's no market mechanism in place for carbon credit trading in the US.

[harmonious]

Originally Posted by 2H-Dragon

I'll go on the notion that, I just don't know. I do believe that CO2 does increase the temperature on planets. Since it seems like plausible reason why Venus has a way higher temprature compared to Mecurius which is closer to the Sun. Venus has a temp around 480 degrees and Mercurius fluctates between +250 degrees and -250 degrees. Venus is basically the greenhouse effect in full motion. Venus features and extremely dense atmosphere that mostly consists of CO2. The reason the temp on Mercurius is that it has no atmosphere to speak so it has no greenhouse effect to speak off.

Ah, yes Venus. The object they always point to to simply fool people into believing CO2's evil greenhouse effect. Causation equals correlation.

CO2 in Venus' atmosphere is simply one piece in the puzzle.

To put it as simply as I can, Venus is a gigantic pressure cooker. CO2, like any other greenhouse gas, brings in radation to the planet's surface. The dense cloud cover traps the heat like a pan lid causing a constant tunnel of heat underneath the thick cloud cover. The rotation of the planet in the opposite direction of its orbit causes the constant recycling of hot CO2 allowing for heat budgets to form. All this combined with an atmosphere that is 90x that of Earth's and you have a gigantic pressure cooker with immense temperatures and pressures that is bringing magma up from bellow the surface.

Mercury is just a rock orbiting closest to the sun.

[raikage]

Originally Posted by DjTrizz

I want them to define "one square of toilet paper" cause I'm possibly taking it too literally...

I've heard that she was actually joking about that.

But since I can't seem to find a clip of her actually speaking... only news pundits reading off a script... I can't say for sure.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by harmonious

Ah, yes Venus. The object they always point to to simply fool people into believing CO2's evil greenhouse effect.

Note that not only the world's climatologists are included in the evil conspiracy to fool the people but now also the world's planetologists. Note also that the CO2 production that should protect us against a new ice age just a few posts ago now suddenly doesn't have any effect at all. Finally, note that harmonious isn't discussing at all, he just extends his monologue.

Originally Posted by harmonious

To put it as simply as I can, Venus is a gigantic pressure cooker. CO2, like any other greenhouse gas, brings in radation to the planet's surface. The dense cloud cover traps the heat like a pan lid causing a constant tunnel of heat underneath the thick cloud cover. The rotation of the planet in the opposite direction of its orbit causes the constant recycling of hot CO2 allowing for heat budgets to form. All this combined with an atmosphere that is 90x that of Earth's and you have a gigantic pressure cooker with immense temperatures and pressures that is bringing magma up from bellow the surface.

That makes no scientific sense on any level.

[Reckoner]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/...carboncapture/

So does anyone know anything about carbon storing and why it may or may not be bad? It seems that our technology for capturing carbon in the air is improving greatly... Is this a promising prospect or no?

[Vexx]

Carbon-capture is a mixed bag in that really -- many people are brainstorming ideas (the article was pretty good at describing that). When brainstorming, all the ideas are collected and examined. Sometimes a crazy idea actually works out and a "common sense solution" is a disaster.

All the "lets dump X into the ocean" ideas raise red flags in my head instantly (effects on sealife) but they may actually prove out. Trees and below ground are still one of the least intrusive capturing devices.

[bbduece]

Global warming causes the earth to behave even more erratically. Contrary to believe, global warming will cause unnessary condensation in the atmosphere blocking out heat from reaching the surface of the earth (albedo and reflection)thus causing colder climates ('global dimming" - predictions of massive clouds blocking necessary sunlight - heat and energy, the earth will get cooler not hotter atleast after it gets really hot then a massive long term cool down). Also less sunlight will reach the earth thus the plants will suffer and a detrimental chain affect is predicted among all creatures on land. Many organisms will adapt but the human race will feel the destructive affect (all predictions). Plantons will suffer as well (the vital part of the oceans food chain).

Of course we are not at that point yet, but if we dont stop injecting the the ozonesphere with threatening agents then our homosphere wil deteriorate.

We dont have to worry about gamma rays and xrays since the ionosphere is not really affected by our pollution atm. But the ozonosphere is affected and does absorb a lot of the ultraviolet rays which is not too healthy for the human skin.

If we don't control our polluting habits then our children will suffer. We on the other hand will not live long enough to feel the effects of years of accumulated pollution.

(I dont buy the skin cancer warning from global warming that is in effect at the moment, people are saying there are holes in the ozone but i dont know how these theories are being tested)

Worrying about global warming is being considerate of our children's future. It will not affect us (takes too long to feel the effects, most changes are very minute and gradual).

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vexx

All the "lets dump X into the ocean" ideas raise red flags in my head instantly (effects on sealife) but they may actually prove out. Trees and below ground are still one of the least intrusive capturing devices.

That reminded me of that article on /. from a few days ago, about the idea of dumping lime into the oceans to absorb more carbon dioxide. I think we used to believe that all oxygen production and carbon dioxide intake was performed by forests, particularly the rainforests. I guess it's a relatively new discovery, then, that the oceans already absorb a huge quantity of carbon dioxide due to the phytoplankton. It makes the prospects of ocean pollution even more frightening, as a research paper released a year or two ago came to the conclusion that at the current rate of things, the only life left in the oceans in about 50 years (I think) will be jellyfish.

Dumping lime into the oceans seems a bit silly, then. The oceans are already absorbing a fair bit of carbon dioxide... why risk messing it up?

[Vexx]

Given the ongoing collapse of the bottom of the food chain in the oceans.... a breeding program of phytoplankton and krill sounds like better "gentle shove" plans

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

That reminded me of that article on /. from a few days ago, about the idea of dumping lime into the oceans to absorb more carbon dioxide. I think we used to believe that all oxygen production and carbon dioxide intake was performed by forests, particularly the rainforests. I guess it's a relatively new discovery, then, that the oceans already absorb a huge quantity of carbon dioxide due to the phytoplankton.

I think they taught that the ocean absorbed most of the carbon dioxyde when I was in junior high, 15 years ago. The rainforest just had a better PR.

It makes the prospects of ocean pollution even more frightening, as a research paper released a year or two ago came to the conclusion that at the current rate of things, the only life left in the oceans in about 50 years (I think) will be jellyfish.

Dumping lime into the oceans seems a bit silly, then. The oceans are already absorbing a fair bit of carbon dioxide... why risk messing it up?

Because it absorbs a fair bit of carbon dioxide and a small relative increase of that absorption could have a bigger effect than the same relative increase in the rainforest?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Because it absorbs a fair bit of carbon dioxide and a small relative increase of that absorption could have a bigger effect than the same relative increase in the rainforest?

True, and I'm not arguing against its possible effectiveness. I'm looking to the future. The oceans are huge and only more recently people have begun to realize that it doesn't have an infinite resilience to what we dump there. See coral reef bleaching as an example, as well as the dead zone located somewhere in international waters (forgot the exact region and name, but I can probably pull it up if you're interested). My point was that the oceans are already playing a huge role due to biological processes. Performing yet another massive change to the oceans' chemistry to make it do even more doesn't seem like such a great idea to me. I'm sure it could have amazing effects in the short term, but I don't give it very high marks in the sustainability arena.

[Anh_Minh]

I see the ocean like a very powerful tool. It has tremendous potential to help us. It also has the potential to horribly screw us up if we do the wrong thing with it.

Also, unlike man-made tools, we don't fully understand how it works.

So, yeah, I can understand why you don't want to mess with it. I'm just saying, while there is risk, there's also potential. I don't necessarily disagree with the prudent approach, though.

[bbduece]

Check out "The Inconvenient Truth" with Al Gore. The former president goes in depth about global warming. By scientist standards it is very accurate.

[Guts]

The theory of global warming is credible, and an active example is the planet Venus. The theory that humans create most of the earth's greenhouse gases is however completely unfounded.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Guts

The theory that humans create most of the earth's greenhouse gases is however completely unfounded.

Yea we don't, humans produce like close to 1% of it though.

But then this goes into what the world's environment can handle. The atmosphere recycles like "X" amount of carbon dioxide. X is about the number of carbon dioxide produced normally in nature. Us humans now though are sending "X + A" of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. What do you think is going to happen to the atmosphere if all that carbon dioxide just sits there accumulating? Even that little bit is going to add up.

So that statement should be changed to "Humans create most of the excess greenhouse gases on our planet."

[bbduece]

Originally Posted by Guts

The theory of global warming is credible, and an active example is the planet Venus. The theory that humans create most of the earth's greenhouse gases is however completely unfounded.

We do enough to compromise the integrity of the earth system which can potentially break down to a level where it would be dangerous.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Guts

The theory of global warming is credible, and an active example is the planet Venus. The theory that humans create most of the earth's greenhouse gases is however completely unfounded.

Completely unfounded? Since we've surpassed record levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, could you tell me where this extra carbon dioxide is coming from? It is thought that in the past, carbon dioxide spikes could largely be attributed to heightened volcanic activity. We're not really seeing much of that these days.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

So that statement should be changed to "Humans create most of the excess greenhouse gases on our planet."

thats an excellent way to put it. As Reckoner said, while we may not contribute huge amounts of green house gases, what we are doing is creating and forcing something outside, the 'clockwork' of the ecosystem so to speak. Whether its a lot or very little is not the issue, the fact that we contribute in excess is.