Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Mark1309:
And since the theory in question is that of the GW proponents, the burden of proof is on you.
I always think that's just the laziest of arguments. It gets trooped out a lot on message boards. quote:
There is no need to "disprove" a theory that obviously hasn't been properly proven yet.
The theory of global warming is based on rock solid, classroom physics. You add more CO2, it traps more heat close to the surface, the planet warms up. Occams Razor says that unless we have data that doesn't fit this theory (i.e. if we're too lazy to argue the point) then we should accept it. If we want to make the best decisions for the planet then we should damn well make the effort to find the truth. |
| |
|
|
quote: Ridiculously irrelevant!
As, it would appear, is just about anything that does not agree with with the tweaked IPCC models. |
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: I always think that's just the laziest of arguments. It gets trooped out a lot on message boards.
Ha! Here come the personal insults, that didn't take long. That's what's great about debating the GW clones, I can do it drunk and in bed with little difficulty. In all seriousness, though... Basic hypothesis testing dictates that I my position (the theory is false) is the null hypothesis, and the theory being true is the alternative hypothesis. We will accept this alternative hypothesis only when there is convincing evidence, which there clearly isn't. Rock solid classroom physics? Maybe in "GW101, the Power of Hand-Picked Facts" This blog, and the internet in general, is overflowing with meaningful data that doesn't fit that theory. You would think you would be happy to learn that we aren't all imminently doomed. Let's have a party! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mark1309:
the internet in general, is overflowing with meaningful data that doesn't fit that theory.
So you agree with me and you are willing to argue against the theory. Well done. Seriously, no personal insult intended. I hardly see how you can find it insulting when someone calls your claim that you don't have to make an argument lazy. If you think you know a flaw in my very simplistic (i.e. 1880's) theory of global warming then point it out and let's find the truth. Don't just say "it's your theory, prove it to me, I can't be bothered to disprove it". |
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: Originally posted by MindCrime: quote: Originally posted by Mark1309:
the internet in general, is overflowing with meaningful data that doesn't fit that theory.
So you agree with me and you are willing to argue against the theory. Well done. Seriously, no personal insult intended. I hardly see how you can find it insulting when someone calls your claim that you don't have to make an argument lazy. If you think you know a flaw in my very simplistic (i.e. 1880's) theory of global warming then point it out and let's find the truth. Don't just say "it's your theory, prove it to me, I can't be bothered to disprove it".
Well, I and countless others actually have made complex, well informed arguments, repeatedly pointing out the fundamental issues with literally every phase of the theory. (Again, I hate to use the word "disprove" to counter something that is far from actually proven.) yet the debate rages on. But following that line of reason, if I introduced a theory that pigs can fly, then it would be everyone elses responsibility to disprove that theory by dropping pigs out of airplanes, off buildings etc. to test the theory. But that simply isn't the way it works. You can't introduce some concept that clearly many people have serious issues with, and simply say that we should all assume it to be true until disproven. What we (the contrarians) have done is introduce a myriad of alternate possibilities that could easily explain nearly every factor that GW proponents use to support the theory. Is it possible that GW is true? Well, I guess if we just assumed that every alternate possiblility along the way is false then it could be.. But the GW theory is just a slim band in a very broad spectrum of possiblities. Me? I'm holding out for something better. |
| |
|
|
No I don't think you understood what I was saying. There are solid reasons why adding CO2 to the atmosphere traps more heat. This is rock solid, repeatable, testable, laboratory physics. And known about for over 100 years, as I said.
Whether there are other factors that counteract this (though I can't imagine what they're meant to be) is another matter - the next stage - and it falls to you to say what you think they are and why.
That is very different from your flying pigs scenario.
It's like me attaching a suitably sized baloon to a pig and saying "this pig will now fly". It then falls to you to point out that (for instance) the baloon will burst when the pig gets to 10,000 feet.
|
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: Originally posted by MindCrime:
No I don't think you understood what I was saying. There are solid reasons why adding CO2 to the atmosphere traps more heat. This is rock solid, repeatable, testable, laboratory physics. And known about for over 100 years, as I said.
Whether there are other factors that counteract this (though I can't imagine what they're meant to be) is another matter - the next stage - and it falls to you to say what you think they are and why.
That is very different from your flying pigs scenario.
It's like me attaching a suitably sized baloon to a pig and saying "this pig will now fly". It then falls to you to point out that (for instance) the baloon will burst when the pig gets to 10,000 feet.
|
| |
|
New Member
|
OK, fine, I'll play... Here's what I have off the top of my head. CO2 is one of several gasses that trap heat. Methane is far better at it, and water vapor is far more plentiful. Also, I have seen a few articles explaining(I am no scientist, as I'm sure everyone can tell) that CO2's effect on temperature increase is logarithmic, meaning that whatever increase in temperature is directly attributed to CO2 levels so far, (lets say it's 1 degree) we would need to add double that to get to a 2 degree increase, and double again to get to 3 degrees. So with these factors accounted for, the overall role of CO2 in warming global temperatures is suspect. Now lets compound that with the fact that mankind is only responsible for a very small part of overall CO2 releases, and it is seems clear to me that it is quite impossible for us to singlehandedly double the CO2 levels in the atmosphere with our activities, let alone double it again. So our role in the matter is even more suspect.
So the fact that CO2 traps heat is only a single random fact, that when placed in the context of other facts is actually of limited importance.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Since the temperature of the Holocene Maximum is close to what global warming models project for the Earth by 2100, how Mankind faired during the era is instructive. The most striking fact is that it was during this period that the Agricultural Revolution began in the Middle East, laying the foundation for civilization. Yet, Greenhouse theory proponents claim the planet will experience severe environmental distress if the climate is that warm again.
Given the fact that humans/planet had 3000 years to adjust to 2C warming, it perhaps can't be compared to current scenarios. Additionally, plants and animals have less scope for adapting because humans are in the way of their new environments. |
| |
|
|
quote: OK, fine, I'll play... Here's what I have off the top of my head. CO2 is one of several gasses that trap heat. Methane is far better at it, and water vapor is far more plentiful. Also, I have seen a few articles explaining(I am no scientist, as I'm sure everyone can tell) that CO2's effect on temperature increase is logarithmic, meaning that whatever increase in temperature is directly attributed to CO2 levels so far, (lets say it's 1 degree) we would need to add double that to get to a 2 degree increase, and double again to get to 3 degrees. So with these factors accounted for, the overall role of CO2 in warming global temperatures is suspect. Now lets compound that with the fact that mankind is only responsible for a very small part of overall CO2 releases, and it is seems clear to me that it is quite impossible for us to singlehandedly double the CO2 levels in the atmosphere with our activities, let alone double it again. So our role in the matter is even more suspect.
First, we can't control water vapour as such - its average level is determined by average temperatures. So even though it is a strong greenhouse gas (stronger than CO2) it won't cause a change in temperatures because it doesn't change. The qualifier is that a warmer world will result in increased water vapour, so the CO2 warming is in effect amplified by a small amount. Yes the effect is logarithmic, and that is factored into assessments of temperature increase. Man is responsible for 30% of current atmospheric CO2, and adds a 1% increase per year. At the moment about half of it is absorbed by the oceans (which may cause its own problems) so we should easily double it (compared with preindustrial levels) by the end of the century at current rates. Man's activity has also added to methane levels. |
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: Yes the effect is logarithmic, and that is factored into assessments of temperature increase.
Man is responsible for 30% of current atmospheric CO2, and adds a 1% increase per year.
quote: Man is responsible for 30% of current atmospheric CO2, and adds a 1% increase per year. At the moment about half of it is absorbed by the oceans (which may cause its own problems) so we should easily double it (compared with preindustrial levels) by the end of the century at current rates. Man's activity has also added to methane levels.
From: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html"Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants." So I am not sure how man can be credited with 30 percent of all CO2 in the atmosphere, when it only contributes around 3% annually. And if there is a constant 1% annual increase of overall CO2 levels, and nothing offsets it (which is kind of a rediculous assumption) we would be what? 2 degrees warmer instead of 1 degree warmer in a century? And don't even get me started on that crummy hockey-stick chart. I have yet to see anything conclusive that the earth even IS warming. Everything I have seen uses ice cores and tree rings (say what??)has weather stations in urban heat islands contributing data, and is STILL within the statistical margin of error. Other equally unreliable temp charts actually show decreases or leveling of temperatures. Which scientifically stone-aged temperature chart should we choose to believe, anyway? The methane argument is the best. So roaming hoardes of buffalo and mammoths didn't produce methane before we had cattle ranches? I love how PETA latched on to that one. At best, the whole thing is a reach. At worst it is a deliberate hoax. My question is, why do people want to believe it so badly? Does humanity really have that much self-loathing? Are people so opinionated that they would rather believe in the end of the earth than be wrong about something? I don't get it. |
| |
|
|
Mark, If humans produce 6 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, how much is produced in 50 years? In your website, did it say how much CO2 is absorbed each year? Now think of it. Leaves die off in winter releasing CO2. But what were the leaves doing all summer - absorbing CO2. Basically apart from fossil fuel burning CO2 is in balance (obvious really otherwise we would have suffocated by now from millions of years of CO2 output from plants). Now you said you are not a scientist but you seem to know a reasonable amount. Can I recommend the following that gives a history of the science which might make you realise that even if the theory is wrong (I don't think it is) it certainly is rational: www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html |
| |
|
New Member
|
Steve,
Thanks for the articles. I want to be objective, and there are a lot of valid facts about the impact of human activities there.
The argument is that the environment is basically in a state of balance, and even though man's overall contributions are small, it is tilting that balance.
Where I disagree is that there are ways for the earth to compensate for that. In my earlier post I stated that 186 billion tons of CO2 are released annually. I don't have all the data (I doubt anyone has accurate figures on this) but I would bet that it is more like 180 billion one year, and 192 billion the next, or whatever, depending on how much volcanic activity there happened to be that year, rainfall etc. And there would be variance in the annual amount of CO2 converted back to oxygen as well.
But other factors help offset those variations. Plant density and crop yields are higher now because of increased levels of CO2. So the plants compensate and churn out more oxygen because they have the extra resources available. Eventually one would expect the cycle to swing the other way. But I don't believe that 3% of total CO2 output is beyond the capacity of the earth to compensate for.
I guess I don't see man as independent from the overall ecosystem at large. Didn't all these fossil fuels contribute oxygen as plants at one time? So why wouldn't releasing their carbon as carbon dioxide be considered part of that cycle and balance?
The system itself doesn't differentiate between sources. But even ASIDE from all that, I still stand my my earlier observations about the limited impact of CO2 on global warming, and the limited role man has on total CO2 levels in the first place.
Anyway. This is about my 10th post today, so I am going to hang 'em up. Till next time...
|
| |
|
|
quote: Where I disagree is that there are ways for the earth to compensate for that. In my earlier post I stated that 186 billion tons of CO2 are released annually. I don't have all the data (I doubt anyone has accurate figures on this) but I would bet that it is more like 180 billion one year, and 192 billion the next, or whatever, depending on how much volcanic activity there happened to be that year, rainfall etc. And there would be variance in the annual amount of CO2 converted back to oxygen as well.
The earth can cope, it's just that it takes a longer time than you'd expect (100s of years). I did do a calculation myself of the amount of fossil fuel CO2 based on oil and coal usage statistics I found on the net, and I worked out that there was more than enough to account for the 30% increase. |
| |
|
|
Forums are not optimal methods for getting educated on contentious topics :-)
Many of the questions here are discussed coherently in the book below.
If you are confused about this topic, and actually would like to get more educated about the climate history of Earth, especially regarding otherwise puzzling gyrations [like the Littlle Ice Age], my favorite single book is:
William Ruddiman: "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate." (About 11 pounds on Amazon) (2005)
Ruddiman is a well-respected paleoclimatologist (i.e., a relevant expert)), but his writing style is excellent and reasonably accessible to non-experts. The book is a wonderful exposition on gathering interdisciplinary data to understand the past, carefully considering alternate hypotheses, examining the evidence, and reaching interesting conclusions.
A short version was the cover article of Scientific American, March 2005. It feels like "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and the germs are very relevant to the story. if you want more detail, there are references to primary research articles.
Over the last 350K years, we've had 4 interglacials @ 100Kyear intervals. The current onelooks *real* different than the earlier interglacials, even though the orbital circumstances are fairly similar. Ruddiman looks at alternative reasons why, then notes that the big difference in this one = humans doing agriculture.
In the earlier interglacials:
1) CO2 concentrations rise fairly rapidly, with peak values around 280 ppm, several thousand years before ice sheets reach minimum size.
2) Then, over about 90K years, CO2 slowly (with jiggles) drops back down around ~200 ppm. [Ruddiman, p.85] of course, in the current orbital regime, the natural state of the planet has kilometers of ice over Stockholm.
But in our interglacial (the Holocene), the CO2 peaked (~265) about 10,000 years ago, and started its downward trend back towards the next Ice Age. But about 2,000 years later, the CO2 flattened around 260, and started going up again, to ~280 (before industrialism). That's about 40ppm higher than it would normally have been expected to be without humans [p.87].
of course, we're higher now, due to industrialism. He also looks at the Methane results, which are similar, although the uptick starts 5,000 years ago animals, rice paddies].
|
| |
|
|
Mark, this is useful as I think you have exposed two misunderstandings that are probably very common amongst most people.
The first is that you talk about the small CO2 contribution from man and how the ecosystem will adjust. What you have to remember when you see figues like 180bbT CO2 emitted or absorbed by plants is that this is the same carbon going round and round. The plants absorb CO2, they emit half of it directly when they respire, most of the rest goes to leaves, seeds, fruit etc. that are consumed by animals and also re-emitted by respiration. Nearly all of what's left decays in the soil, emitting the CO2. Almost none of it doesn't return to the atmosphere within a few years. So it's the same carbon going round and round.
Then we dump in a load more - there is nowhere for it to go, it just adds to the loop and goes round and round like the rest.
The other misunderstanding is that a lot of people seem to think that scientists observed some warming then went looking for an explanation and latched onto CO2. That is exactly the wrong way round. As I said, global warming from CO2 has been understood for over 100 years. It was predicted that increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would cause warming. The fact that we are now observing it is just the confirmation of the theory. The "uncertainties" that you point to, such as other greenhouse gasses or the Beer-Lambert law (log absorption - first described in 1729, so this is all well understood by the scientists) do not suggest that CO2 won't cause warming.
|
| |
|
|
realprimate are you a computer generated program?
|
| |
|
|
As you seem to do two things only. Thanking for the comment and posting a link
|
| |
|
New Member
|
I've been following this topic for several years now, and read countless articles on the subject, but one question is still bugging me that nobody has provided a clear answer on.
If an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming, why, according to all the weather balloons and satellite data is the temperature 'up there' hardly changing?
Surely if more heat was being trapped by this extra CO2 it would warm the upper atmosphere well before we felt the effects down here?
If anybody can point me to a concrete answer to this I would very much appreciate it.
Ta.
S.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by APL:
Yes it does definately - I was just concentrating on the CO2 GW side of things.
It's the increasing warmth of the planet that's the problem. Whatever way you slice and dice it it's those darn greenhouse gases. |
| |
|
|
| Posted | | |
