Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter ZAGGIN
  • 3,647 comments
  • 225,372 views

Which of the following statements best reflects your views on Global Warming?

  • Global warming is occurring and human activity is the main cause

    Votes: 159 32.0%

  • Global warming is occurring, but human activity is only playing a minor role

    Votes: 88 17.7%

  • Global warming is occurring, but it is entirely natural

    Votes: 57 11.5%

  • Global warming is occurring, but anthropogenic global warming theory is a fraud

    Votes: 23 4.6%

  • Global warming is occurring, but the causes are not known

    Votes: 32 6.4%

  • Global warming is not occurring at all

    Votes: 17 3.4%

  • Global warming is not occurring at all and anthropogenic global warming theory is a fraud

    Votes: 50 10.1%

  • Global warming is occurring, and human activity plays a significant role (this option was added afte

    Votes: 71 14.3%
  • Total voters
    497
In an unprecedented step, the UK's most prestigious scientific body, The Royal Society, has urged oil company Exxon Mobil to stop funding groups who peddle 'inaccurate and misleading' messages with regard to global warming, which undermine the scientific consensus view on anthropogenic climate change. (Article....)

This comes in the same week as journalist (and frequent contributor to the Guardian's comment pages) George Monbiot revealed for the first time a direct link between the pro-tobacco lobby and the global warming deniers... there was also a piece by Monbiot on last night's 'Newsnight' programme on the very same subject. (Article....)
 
I'd still love to know why the Ordovician era Ice Age had atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations 10 times higher than we do now if carbon dioxide makes the planet warmer.
 
Touring Mars
a direct link between the pro-tobacco lobby and the global warming deniers
Click to expand...
OK, I really fail to see the link here. Are smokers causing global warming?

I also didn't read the article, as I am somewhat busy at work.



Ona side note, locally we have been within a few degrees of our record low yesterday and today.

Where are all the people rambling on about the global cooling?


Oh and Al Gore had a novel idea to help stop pollution (thus global warming) earlier this week.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14906118/
“Penalizing pollution instead of penalizing employment will work to reduce that pollution,” Gore said Monday in a speech at New York University School of Law.

The carbon tax would replace all payroll taxes, including those for Social Security and unemployment compensation, Gore said. He said the overall level of taxation, would remain the same.
Click to expand...
I don't care how serial he is, he's a dolt. If his plan worked and pollution was decreased then the government would be broke. Nevermind the fact that companies would be more likely to recoup those losses by reducing the workforce than by changing their entire process.

He also apparently forgot to take into account businesses like mine that produce little or no emissions because we all sit around in offices at computers all day. Non industrial jobs won't be paying much pollution tax, if any, and the employees also don't have to pay income tax.

As was said about him six years ago: "This is fuzzy math."
 
FoolKiller
OK, I really fail to see the link here. Are smokers causing global warming?

I also didn't read the article, as I am somewhat busy at work.
Click to expand...
No, of course not - that wasn't the point of the article at all. The basis of the story is that Philip Morris, the tobacco company responsible for Marlboro cigarettes, tried to discredit peer-reviewed scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer, and that the exact same strategy of misinformation is now being employed by certain proxy groups that purport to advance 'climate science' - but who are infact being funded by Exxon Mobil to advance a set strategy with the sole aim of undermining the scientific consensus view, which is that anthropogenic global warming is real. The fact that the National Academy of Sciences in the US and the Royal Society in the UK both agree that the challenge to the scientific consensus is bogus, should tell you something...

Famine
I'd still love to know why the Ordovician era Ice Age had atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations 10 times higher than we do now if carbon dioxide makes the planet warmer.
Click to expand...
From the literature, it's highly debatable whether this is actually true. There is much doubt over whether the coincidence of the Ice Age with an atmospheric CO2 level of nearly 4000 ppm actually happened. Atleast one recent paper (in the journal Geology) seems to think that the original correlation between the dating of the ice age and the CO2 levels is mismatched.

Scientists have argued that today's global climate change has been caused in part by buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from fossil fuel emissions. But critics have rebutted that, if carbon dioxide truly raises global temperature, an ice age could not have occurred in Ordovician period, when a greenhouse effect was much greater than today's.

In the latest research, Ohio scientists found this particular ice age did not begin when carbon dioxide was at its peak, it began 10 million years earlier, when carbon dioxide levels were at a low.

They found that large deposits of quartz sand in the US state of Nevada, Norway and Estonia formed simultaneously 440 million years ago. The scientists suspect that the sand formed when water levels fell low enough to expose quartz rock, so that wind and rain could weather the rock into sand.

The fact that the deposits were found in three different sites suggests that sea levels may have been low all over the world at that time, likely because much of the planet's water was bound in ice at the poles, scientists said.

Then they examined limestone sediments from the sites and determined that there was a relatively large amount of organic carbon buried in the oceans and, by extension, relatively little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the same time. Taken together, the evidence suggests that the ice began to build up some 10 million years earlier than the Ordovician ice age.

"Our results are consistent with the notion that CO2 (carbon dioxide) concentrations drive climate," said Matthew Saltzman, an assistant professor who led the research, "I think that now we have good evidence that resolves this mismatch."
Click to expand...
Source...

My somewhat sketchy understanding of it is that, far from the data showing that high CO2 levels corresponded directly to the ice age, the data actually shows that the CO2 levels were low and consistent with the onset of an ice age when it actually happened... the fact is that there may be evidence to show that CO2 levels can and have been at 4000 ppm at sometime in the past, but that the link between this level of CO2 and the ice age is controversial to say the least.
 
Famine
I'd still love to know why the Ordovician era Ice Age had atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations 10 times higher than we do now if carbon dioxide makes the planet warmer.
Click to expand...

Do scientists know the cause of the ice age, CO2 notwithstanding? A million years seems a bit long for ash from an asteroid to linger, but is that possible? The CO2 was already present in the that era, so maybe some catastrophic event happened that overpowered it.
 
FoolKiller
So it did happen and all life on Earth wasn't wiped out?
Click to expand...

That's not the issue, although the answer is yes... the issue is that the correlation between the high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the timing of the ice age is, at best, not established. What effect do you think a high level (4000 ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere would have on life in the ocean, or plant life? Yes, human life would have had a serious problem, if humans had been around 500 million years ago..., but we weren't (obviously).

Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere and/or rising global temperatures will not wipe out life on Earth - but it will change the environment in such a way as to force us to change our way of life. Life has always and will always evolve and adapt to survive it's new environs, but that might not be of much comfort to anyone.

edit: Branson pledges all future profits over the next 10 years from his transport interests to tackling global warming - estimated at $3bn :eek:
 
Touring Mars
the link between this level of CO2 and the ice age is controversial to say the least.
Click to expand...

Quite right too - post hoc ergo propter hoc being the logical fallacy at play here.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Earth is undergoing a net increase in the energy absorbed/energy retained/energy radiated graph. I haven't got much doubt that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing. I'm not too dismissive of the fact that we're turning more solid carbon into gaseous carbon dioxide than at almost any point in our history (though I'm highly dismissive of the notion that it's cars that are to blame). But again, post hoc ergo propter hoc - the three may all be occurring simultaneously, but the reasoning, and indeed the understanding of the very mechanics of it, does not support a view that the one leads to the next leads to the next.
 
keef
Do scientists know the cause of the ice age, CO2 notwithstanding? A million years seems a bit long for ash from an asteroid to linger, but is that possible? The CO2 was already present in the that era, so maybe some catastrophic event happened that overpowered it.
Click to expand...

The ice age is largely an orbital phenomenon. The Earth's orbit about the sun changes in how elliptical or circular it is over time (the degree of ellipticity is known as eccentricity - it's a Keplerian orbital element). The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit is perturbed by many things, and we've tracked it over time.

As the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit changes, our climate changes. Ice ages are cyclical in this regard and occur regularly. We happen to be due for one at the moment. The last time the Earth was due for an ice age was over 100,000 years ago. That's more than 16 times longer than some people believe the Earth has existed.... that's a long time.
 
Famine
Quite right too - post hoc ergo propter hoc being the logical fallacy at play here.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Earth is undergoing a net increase in the energy absorbed/energy retained/energy radiated graph. I haven't got much doubt that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing. I'm not too dismissive of the fact that we're turning more solid carbon into gaseous carbon dioxide than at almost any point in our history (though I'm highly dismissive of the notion that it's cars that are to blame). But again, post hoc ergo propter hoc - the three may all be occurring simultaneously, but the reasoning, and indeed the understanding of the very mechanics of it, does not support a view that the one leads to the next leads to the next.
Click to expand...

We can but look at the facts as they are and attempt to understand the mechanics of how CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere affects global climate. It may not be a logical certainty that 'one thing leads to the next', but it hasn't been established that the reverse is true either... there is growing (and some may say, already ample) evidence that CO2 concentrations are a major factor in global temperature cycles, and that by raising CO2 levels to unprecedented levels (again, for which there is very strong evidence), human activity is contributing to a period of warming that arguably would not be happening otherwise. I agree that the onus is on the scientists to establish the link if indeed it exists - but similarly, it is also the duty of scientists to debunk the claims of parties with vested interests (most of whom are not scientists and who do not publish or discuss their findings in peer-reviewed journals) who seek to establish by other means that there is no connection...
 
Touring Mars
...and that by raising CO2 levels to unprecedented levels (again, for which there is very strong evidence)
Click to expand...

By "unprecedented" you mean, "has occured and been exceeded in the recent past when compared to the timescale of climate shifts".
 
Specifically I meant 'unprecedented' in terms of CO2 levels across the timescale of human activity. The article that Zardoz linked to many a time (here) highlights the fact that recent human activity has increased CO2 levels to their highest level in 650,000 years.

Of course, as you rightly point out, CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, meaning that the CO2 levels themselves are not unprecedented, but the fact remains that in the history of civilisation, CO2 levels are at an unprecedented high relative to our experience. The fact that there is very strong support for the notion that CO2 levels play an important role in climate control, and that CO2 levels are currently significantly higher than they would be otherwise (without human activity) points (in my view) clearly towards the fact that we should be making an effort to reduce CO2 emissions...
 
danoff
The ice age is largely an orbital phenomenon. The Earth's orbit about the sun changes in how elliptical or circular it is over time (the degree of ellipticity is known as eccentricity - it's a Keplerian orbital element). The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit is perturbed by many things, and we've tracked it over time.

As the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit changes, our climate changes. Ice ages are cyclical in this regard and occur regularly. We happen to be due for one at the moment. The last time the Earth was due for an ice age was over 100,000 years ago. That's more than 16 times longer than some people believe the Earth has existed.... that's a long time.
Click to expand...

I'm well out my depth here but didn't the last Ice Age end about 10,000 years ago. I always seem to read that's why the earth is heating up, simply because the earth is recovering from it.
 
Mark T
I'm well out my depth here but didn't the last Ice Age end about 10,000 years ago. I always seem to read that's why the earth is heating up, simply because the earth is recovering from it.
Click to expand...

The planet does go through periods of climate change naturally, with ice ages being a part of that natural cycle. But natural temperature changes are only a part of the story. Once the natural temperature cycle has been taken into account, we can then assess whether the current trend of global warming is merely part of this natural cycle or whether there is something else at play...
 
Touring Mars
Of course, as you rightly point out, CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, meaning that the CO2 levels themselves are not unprecedented, but the fact remains that in the history of civilisation, CO2 levels are at an unprecedented high relative to our experience.
Click to expand...
But since we are talking about the Earth heating up shouldn't it be relative to the planetary experience?

The fact that there is very strong support for the notion that CO2 levels play an important role in climate control, and that CO2 levels are currently significantly higher than they would be otherwise (without human activity) points (in my view) clearly towards the fact that we should be making an effort to reduce CO2 emissions...
Click to expand...
Can I get a control group to prove this?
 
FoolKiller
But since we are talking about the Earth heating up shouldn't it be relative to the planetary experience?
Click to expand...

What's the point? The whole point of addressing the issue of global warming at all is because of the potential consequences for human civilisation (or not, as the case may be). But where exactly is the point in saying 'well, the Earth used to have a CO2 concentration of 4000 ppm in the atmosphere' - if it is completely irrelevant to our current predicament?

The real reason that people mention that particular factlet is because it has been connected (erroneously) to an ice age... The only other reason for considering what CO2 levels in the atmosphere used to be is to give us a picture of how CO2 levels influence climate change, and to give us an idea of what the CO2 levels should be, if the planet were following a steady cycle of cimate change.... the scientific consensus view is that increased CO2 levels do correlate tightly with higher global temperatures, and that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere does not fit with what could be considered as normal, in the context of long term climatic variation.

But my point is, the stand-alone fact that CO2 levels were once much higher than they are now, really doesn't matter much at all in the present context...
 
Touring Mars
What's the point? The whole point of addressing the issue of global warming at all is because of the potential consequences for human civilisation (or not, as the case may be). But where exactly is the point in saying 'well, the Earth used to have a CO2 concentration of 4000 ppm in the atmosphere' - if it is completely irrelevant to our current predicament?
Click to expand...
Because it is relevant. The CO2 is not going to be the cause of any potential consequences for human civilization, global warming is. The result of the CO2 is the cause of potential consequences to human civilization.

It is relevant because we have to look at what the CO2 did to the atmosphere. If there was a CO2 concentration of 4000 ppm you have to look at what happened. Was the result something that could create severe consequences for human civilization? Whether you believe humans are causing global warming or not it is relevant to your case. Was Earth unlivable for humans when the CO2 was at 4000 ppm? If so then you have an example of what will happen to the atmosphere as the CO2 concentration grows.

It is not relevant to whether humans are causing CO2 concentrations to increase, but it does show what the results may be if current trends persist. The only reason to just measure CO2 during human existence is to try and find a correlation between CO2 concentrations and human activity. And that still leaves a window for coincedence that I am not willing to ignore.
 
Touring Mars
Specifically I meant 'unprecedented' in terms of CO2 levels across the timescale of human activity. The article that Zardoz linked to many a time (here) highlights the fact that recent human activity has increased CO2 levels to their highest level in 650,000 years.
Click to expand...

I think this is detrimental to the global warming case. Is the Earth hotter right now than at any time in the last 650,000 years? I don't believe so. So how can you say that C02 is so tightly linked with global warming?

TM
Of course, as you rightly point out, CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, meaning that the CO2 levels themselves are not unprecedented, but the fact remains that in the history of civilisation, CO2 levels are at an unprecedented high relative to our experience.
Click to expand...

All that matters is a chart of C02 vs. temperature throughout the history of the Earth (and determining correlation). Whether or not we were around is useless for determining the effect of C02 on atmospheric temperature.


TM
The fact that there is very strong support for the notion that CO2 levels play an important role in climate control,
Click to expand...

Where is that support?

TM
and that CO2 levels are currently significantly higher than they would be otherwise (without human activity)
Click to expand...

Where did that conclusion come from?

TM
points (in my view) clearly towards the fact that we should be making an effort to reduce CO2 emissions...
Click to expand...

Unsupported in so many ways.

1) Do we have higher levels of C02 than in the (significant) past (on a geological scale)? That seems to be the case.
2) Do the C02 levels correspond to temperature? That seems not to be the case given that the Earth was hotter than it is now only a few thousand years ago.
3) If it should be proved that C02 levels cause temperature increases, are we the chief reason for the increase in C02 levels? Unknown
4) If it should be proved that C02 levels cause temperature increases, and we are the chief reason for the increase, will they dramatically effect human life? Unknown.
5) If it should be proved that C02 levels cause temperature increases, and we are the chief reason for the increase, and it will dramatically effect human life, what is the best possible way to reverse the effects? Unknown.

I would argue that point 5 would be to concentrate on methane emissions rather than C02. So even if the article showed that C02 was linked with temperature (which it most certainly does not), you'd be 3 steps removed from establishing that we should reduce C02 emissions.

paleocarbon.gif
 
Maybe this is a good reason why we shouldn't be thinking in terms of geological time, and thinking more along the lines of the timeline of human civilisation... the graph you show might make one immediately assume that there is no connection at all between global temperature and CO2 levels, but that isn't the case... for a start it says nothing about any of the other factors that influence global temperature - it isn't a direct correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature, unless it has been background-corrected...

We do not know exactly what the effect of raising CO2 levels above the point at which they are balanced by nature over such a short period of time is, but the current available physical evidence is that the temperature is rising, the rate at which the temperature is rising is predicted to rise as well, and that the Earth is indeed responding in ways that are consistent with previous predictions. We do know that CO2 concentrations are now increasing at a rate not seen within the timeline of human experience, and that CO2 levels are at a higher level now than at any time in human experience...

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland. "We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."
Click to expand...

(If I had more time, I'd like to respond more thoroughly, but it's 5.35 pm on a Friday night here, and that means it's time for some CO2-laden brewskis!)




 
Touring Mars
Maybe this is a good reason why we shouldn't be thinking in terms of geological time, and thinking more along the lines of the timeline of human civilisation... the graph you show might make one immediately assume that there is no connection at all between global temperature and CO2 levels, but that isn't the case... for a start it says nothing about any of the other factors that influence global temperature - it isn't a direct correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature, unless it has been background-corrected...

We do not know exactly what the effect of raising CO2 levels above the point at which they are balanced by nature over such a short period of time is, but the current available physical evidence is that the temperature is rising, the rate at which the temperature is rising is predicted to rise as well, and that the Earth is indeed responding in ways that are consistent with previous predictions. We do know that CO2 concentrations are now increasing at a rate not seen within the timeline of human experience, and that CO2 levels are at a higher level now than at any time in human experience...
Click to expand...

Human experience, especially the period during which humans have actually been gathering data about current conditions, is far too limited from which to draw conclusions. We have to look at least half a million years into the past before we can start to properly see climate cycles. Restricting the discussion to human experience leaves us with no knowledge of climate cycles and so nothing to compare against.

The most recent finding I've seen is that the Earth is the hottest it has been in 2000 years. That's not nearly far enough back to draw any conclusions from.

Greenland, for example, used to be green - when it was settled by the vikings. Those settlers died, of course, when the snow showed up. You can still go to greenland and see the icy remains of their villages. Greenland is becoming greener again, but it has been far more hospitable even in the short time humans have been around - indicating that the earth was warmer back then... and I know that didn't have anything to do with SUVs.
 
This just in:

Web_Pressebild.gif


The Sun has been more active in the last 60 years than at any point in the last 8,000 years - and is more active right now than at any point in the last 11,000 years.
 
Famine
This just in:

The Sun has been more active in the last 60 years than at any point in the last 8,000 years - and is more active right now than at any point in the last 11,000 years.
Click to expand...
But Famine, everyone knows that a simple correlation doesn't mean proof.........unless we are talking about CO2.
 
danoff
...and unless we limit that C02 relationship to within the last 100 years.
Click to expand...
...and then ignore the fact that 1936 was the hottest year on record with the US Geological Survey/National Weather Bureau.
 
"Hottest year" in what context? In the northern hemisphere, 2005 was the 'hottest' year on record... and besides, a single point on a graph doesn't mean much when taken in context of the general trend... we all acknowledge that fluctations happen, but referring to a single point in time (whether it is actually a genuine measure of global mean temperature or not) is not conclusive either way, especially given that the recent trend shows a general increase, rather than a mere single maxima.
 
Touring Mars
"Hottest year" in what context? In the northern hemisphere, 2005 was the 'hottest' year on record... and besides, a single point on a graph doesn't mean much when taken in context of the general trend... we all acknowledge that fluctations happen, but referring to a single point in time (whether it is actually a genuine measure of global mean temperature or not) is not conclusive either way, especially given that the recent trend shows a general increase, rather than a mere single maxima.
Click to expand...

Another key question is what are we actually measuring? How DO you take the Earth's temperature - or, for that matter, the Northern Hemisphere's? Or even a specific country's?

Whereabouts in the Northern Hemisphere was 2005 "the hottest year on record"? It wasn't Greenland, Norway or the United Kingdom - or the USA. Why would it be the Northern Hemisphere's hottest year and not the Southern Hemisphere where, we're all told that, our "Greenhouse Gas" emissions are doing the most damage?
 
Touring Mars
"Hottest year" in what context? In the northern hemisphere, 2005 was the 'hottest' year on record... and besides, a single point on a graph doesn't mean much when taken in context of the general trend... we all acknowledge that fluctations happen, but referring to a single point in time (whether it is actually a genuine measure of global mean temperature or not) is not conclusive either way, especially given that the recent trend shows a general increase, rather than a mere single maxima.
Click to expand...

I agree generally that a single maxima doesn't help illustrate trends, but it does indicate the severity of the current temperature and can put it in context with other extrema.

What we really have to establish is that the current trend is out of family with previous trends (for hundreds of thousands of years). That's a tall order.
 
The sun's recent activity SHOULD be detrimental to the global warming case, as it's the same sort of correlation that environmentalists throw around with CO2.

Honestly, shouldn't this be huge news?


And unfortunately, Foolkiller, the fact that your article is from Fox News (oh no!) is probably going to make most global-warming theory supporters dismiss it.
 
Fox News is a right-wing instrument of the Satanic Industrial Conspiracy Complex... :lol:

Interesting study. While it is known that the reflectivity of the planet in general, and cloud cover in particular, greatly affects global warming, the effect of cosmic rays is something not many people pay attention to.

Our sun is a truly variable star, and the cyclic Ice Ages prove that... in fact, aren't we overdue for one already? Snap of the fingers, bang! More cosmic radiation, mutant babies, cloud cover, and glaciers over New York? :lol:
 

Similar threads

Dotini
Global Energy Crisis
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Eunos_Cosmo
Eunos_Cosmo
B
Vacancy: Director of global communications at Polyphony Digital
Replies
0
Views
437
Boxster
B
Danoff
4 Degrees of Trump (game, rules in OP)
3 4 5
Replies
145
Views
8K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Eunos_Cosmo
Nuclear Fusion - Are we getting closer?
Replies
2
Views
703
Exorcet
Exorcet
mef
  • Poll
Digital IDs and how they will be used to control us
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
MatskiMonk
MatskiMonk

Latest Posts

Back