Man Made Global Warming

[Nameless]

There was a recent quite heated discussion over on the Science! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106697) thread about Co2 effecting the coral reefs where I also hinted my thoughts on Co2 and climate change so some of what I talk about here might be a little repetitive. There was also another thread recently opened, but I though that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to discuss this there.
I’ve also come to realise from when, (and the only time) I attempted to discuss this with someone who does believe Co2 is effecting the climate, it can actually be quite a sensitive topic and I end up not actually being able to go further then “See, I don’t fully agree---” before getting told off. So if you disagree with what I’m saying, feel free to post a comment, but don’t take this post personally.



Okay so let’s start.
When I first started to learn about global warming when I was in year 7 or 8 I think (when I started secondary school), I became very concerned for the environment. In fact, even before that when I still in primary school I always wanted to join Greenpeace and “save the planet” when I got older… Even though I was never really sure from what at the time. So it was only natural for me to become even more conscious when I started to learn about this.
By the time I got to year 10 we were still learning about Global Warming almost every term and it was on almost every test we took. The only thing I never really understood was how the Co2 was effecting the ozone layer. I knew the process of how it worked, but I never really understood why, or how the physical process went. I asked my teacher this, and she just showed me that diagram of Co2 going up to the ozone layer. I explained to her again what I wanted to understand and asked if there was a way to demonstrate it, but she couldn’t really explain it and said she couldn’t demonstrate it.
But hold on, Carbon Dioxide effecting the climate is one of the major discussion hot spots, we’re taught about it almost every chemistry and physics lesson, it’s on almost every paper… But my teacher can’t even give me solid proof of Co2 providing the ozone layer with another greenhouse gass? She showed me solid evidence for almost everything else, but not something this important? So I realised something that we were never actually told in school, in the media or by politicians. Co2 effecting the climate wasn’t fact, It was theory. It couldn’t actually be scientifically proven.
Of course, I didn’t say anything. Although I became sceptical I still believed it more or less. After all, if it was being taught in my science class at my school and it being such a public hot spot- it had to be true… Right?

So, a couple of years later I finally finished school, past my exams, enjoyed my summer break, went on holiday, blah blah blah and after went to college where I’m currently studding. Shortly after, I wanted to look at global warming again, learn more about it. Except now I could look at it as a theory rather then fact. And this is when I started to realise major problems with the theory.
One of the claims climate scientists make is that because of our Co2, we’ll see many natural disasters worse then EVER and they use all of the disasters that we see today as an example… But hold on a minuet, through out Earths long history there have been countless of natural disasters, many of which are far worse then even Hurricane Katrina. And if I’m not mistaken… Isn’t Global Warming and Global Cooling completely natural? Haven’t wee seen these changes in climate throughout history. Back in the 70’s everyone was going mad about global cooling, it was all over the papers. Go back further to the 18th centaury and there was a madness about global warming. We can go back even further into the middle ages where there was global warming again, even further then that and the themes in London was completely frozen over during winters and the summers were freezing. In fact, during the winters they would open up markets on the Themes. We weren’t always burning oil and coal. And if you want to be sure it’s got nothing to do with humans, you can look back even further at all the Ice Ages. A perfect example of Global Warming/cooling to the extreme and we weren’t even around. Much worse then what we’re seeing now.

Okay, so lets look at the science part.

This is a graph showing the change in surface air temperature in the arctic which is represented by the blue line. The yellow line represents the change in man made Co2 emissions:
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x203/tomshaer/graph1.jpg
You looks at it for the first time and say “hey look, there is a correlation“. But if you look at it closely, you’ll see that there really isn’t. The rough shape is the same, but if you look at it in detail there isn’t much of a similarity.

Now here’s another graph showing the same thing again, but now with a red line that shows the change in the sun’s activity:
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x203/tomshaer/graph2.jpg

I dunno about you, but to me it seems like it has more to do with the sun then with our own Co2.

A while ago I also read an article talking about Co2 and climate change, it said that although it seems that Co2 is effecting the climate, that’s not actually what’s happening. If you look closely enough you’ll realise that Co2 actually increases and decreases after the temperatures increases and decreases. I found a similar article Here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659) which states (as it‘s title):

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming.


Other then that, one of the first things I discovered was that 30,000 scientists who were studding/working on/researching the global warming theory have actually said that they completely disagree with it and don’t find it true. Which is very interesting because if you are one of the scientists who work on global warming, and get paid to do so, why would say it isn’t true and leave if you get paid to work on it?

I think one of the main reasons of why so many people believe in the theory with out question, other then not being given all the facts is that people generally love to hear bad news. When you turn on the news channel, what do you find more interesting, the good news, or the bad news? I’m not saying people always prefer to hear bad news but they do tend to find it more interesting, including myself.
The other reason is that even Politicians agree with it, and they don’t usually say that something bad is happening, so when they do you’re more likely to believe it.

Earth has been around for billions of years. Billions of years of a whole load of horrible things, much worse then what we see today. Compare Billions of years of everything it’s been through with 100... 200 years of us polluting. I honestly don’t think the Earth is bothered much by what we’re doing after going through everything it’s been through.

There’s an interesting documentary I found which talks about some of the things I am and more Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME) although it has a little bit of “crazy conspiracy theories”, but over all it’s pretty good and I do recommend it. There’s quite a bit of politics going on in the video so please, if you do want to discuss anything from there, make sure it’s not the political parts.
It’s just a shame I didn’t know about it at the beginning before I started doing research, would of have saved me a lot of time. :smalltongue:

[CrimsonAngel]

....Holy **** nameless. You've broken my brain. :smalleek:

[BRC]

...Interesting stuff.

My personal take on this issue, is that even if Co2 emissions arn't causing global warming, alot of other problems get fixed by reducing them (All sorts of other pollutants, reliance on dwindling supplies of fossil fuels, ect). In the meantime, there is a chance that, unless reduced, Co2 emissions will cause global warming and all the bad stuff associated with that, So my take is, better safe than sorry. Reduce them, worst case scenario, you just solved all these other associated issues.

[Nameless]

...Interesting stuff.

My personal take on this issue, is that even if Co2 emissions arn't causing global warming, alot of other problems get fixed by reducing them (All sorts of other pollutants, reliance on dwindling supplies of fossil fuels, ect). In the meantime, there is a chance that, unless reduced, Co2 emissions will cause global warming and all the bad stuff associated with that, So my take is, better safe than sorry. Reduce them, worst case scenario, you just solved all these other associated issues.

The only issues I see with Fossil burning fossil fuels are these.
We're completely disregarding the one thing we can prove with Co2, health risks. We know that Co2 is bad for us. We should deal with that rather then a theory that can't be proven.
The other thing is yes, we are running out of fossil fuels (apparently). And for that reason we should look into alterative fuel supplies.


....Holy **** nameless. You've broken my brain.

Ducked tape of plaster? :smalltongue:

[Ninja Chocobo]

I'm pretty sure that CO2 causes the Greenhouse effect, whereas CFCs kill the ozone layer, what with their free radicals and suchlike.

Buuut in terms of global warming as a whole, the idea of the Earth going through temperature cycles, or whatever they're called, is also a valid theory. I mean, we had the ice age so many millions of years ago, and all that.

That said, I'm pretty sure this thread counts as political.

[Metal Head]

Wow Nameless, you've said what I've been saying for years, and far better than I have. Thank you for providing me with this.

Also, let me recommend that people avoid political discussion here. I know it's easy with this topic, but let's make this a scientific discussion.

[Mr. Mud]

That said, I'm pretty sure this thread counts as political.

Not really I don't think... As long as we don't flame/digress too much from science to Politics... :smallconfused:. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Nameless]

I'm pretty sure that CO2 causes the Greenhouse effect, whereas CFCs kill the ozone layer, what with their free radicals and suchlike.

Buuut in terms of global warming as a whole, the idea of the Earth going through temperature cycles, or whatever they're called, is also a valid theory. I mean, we had the ice age so many millions of years ago, and all that.

That said, I'm pretty sure this thread counts as political.

My mistake, I wasn't thinking. Co2 Is a greenhouse gas which supposedly, because of the huge increase, is causing the earth to warm up.

And I agree with Metal Head. This was after all intended as a science discussion, but it is hard to avoid it here as they are so entwined.

[Shadowcaller]

Wow Nameless, you've said what I've been saying for years, and far better than I have. Thank you for providing me with this.

Also, let me recommend that people avoid political discussion here. I know it's easy with this topic, but let's make this a scientific discussion.

I'm afraid that might be hard due what I have seen in the past, but we could always people a try, maybe this thread can be keept unlocked...

[Metal Head]

I'm afraid that might be hard due what I have seen in the past, but we could always people a try, maybe this thread can be keept unocked...

Yeah, but we can try. LGBT has managed to stay strong, despite the obvious possibility of political discussion, flaming (from both sides), and so on.

[Mauve Shirt]

My biggest problem with the "global warming is not man-made" group is that many seem to think this is a good enough reason to not change. I think cutting down on pollution and CO2 is a good thing to do anyway, and searching for alternative energies, not just because of the supposed damage it does to the ozone.

[Mad Mask]

As of my knowledge, Co² is not killing the ozone layer, and no knowledgeable person should think that. Co², in the atmosphere, is a greenhouse gas, which means that the sun's heat can freely pass through it. When it strikes the Earth's surface, some of it is radiated back into space, while the greenhouse gas absorb some of it, leaving it trapped in the atmosphere. Nothing to do with the ozone layer.

Greenhouse gas are entirely natural and life as we know it couldn't exist without it. Also, climate changes are normal and we shouldn't be afraid of it. But the problem is that the climate change we are in is occurring far too fast, as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, leaving no time for endangered species to adapt.

Anyway, even if you don't believe in man-made (or man-fastened?) global warming, I think we all agree that we should stop emitting too much of the gas, because it's a health concern. Alternative energy sources are right out there, but they won't become popular until we've exhausted our oil supplies for reasons I think you know.

EDIT: Is this discussion really political ? I think political discussion would be talking about the government related issues of this, but I may be wrong.

[Metal Head]

EDIT: Is this discussion really political ? I think political discussion would be talking about the government related issues of this, but I may be wrong.

Politics can very easily come into a topic like this, as it's often mentioned by politicians.

[Ghastly Epigram]

I think one of the main reasons of why so many people believe in the theory with out question, other then not being given all the facts is that people generally love to hear bad news. When you turn on the news channel, what do you find more interesting, the good news, or the bad news?

Good News For People Who Love Bad News!

Anyway, a well thought out post! I myself know very little in the ways of the science of it all, so I cannot pretend to have any sort of educated opinion. The only thing I would say (As others have done) is that we should be cutting down on pollution and such anyway because...well, duh. :smalltongue:

[Nameless]

As of my knowledge, Co² is not killing the ozone layer, and no knowledgeable person should think that. Co², in the atmosphere, is a greenhouse gas, which means that the sun's heat can freely pass through it. When it strikes the Earth's surface, some of it is radiated back into space, while the greenhouse gas absorb some of it, leaving it trapped in the atmosphere. Nothing to do with the ozone layer.

I've already acknowledged that as a silly mistake, I know what Co2 does.
Even though, we were practically taught that Co2 was killing the ozone layer.


Greenhouse gas are entirely natural and life as we know it couldn't exist without it. Also, climate changes are normal and we shouldn't be afraid of it. But the problem is that the climate change we are in is occurring far too fast, as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, leaving no time for endangered species to adapt.

This is not true. We are not experiencing ANYTHING abnormal and the weather is NOT changing any faster then it has in the past when climate has changed.
This is one of the points I'm trying to get out.


Anyway, even if you don't believe in man-made (or man-fastened?) global warming, I think we all agree that we should stop emitting too much of the gas, because it's a health concern. Alternative energy sources are right out there, but they won't become popular until we've exhausted our oil supplies for reasons I think you know.

We should try and teach people about the health risks rather then the climate risks and come up with ways to protect people from it.
The only reason I believe we need alternative fuels is because we're apparently running out of fossil fuels.

We need to stop making up problems and pretend to deal with them so that we all get a false sense of achievement and start dealing with the real problems we already have.

[Serpentine]

...Interesting stuff.

My personal take on this issue, is that even if Co2 emissions arn't causing global warming, alot of other problems get fixed by reducing them (All sorts of other pollutants, reliance on dwindling supplies of fossil fuels, ect). In the meantime, there is a chance that, unless reduced, Co2 emissions will cause global warming and all the bad stuff associated with that, So my take is, better safe than sorry. Reduce them, worst case scenario, you just solved all these other associated issues.I've gone on and on about this stuff, so I'll just say: What he said. Even if you remove climate change from the equation entirely, there's still far, far more reasons to change (basically what would be required to prevent climate change anyway) than there are to not.

[Trizap]

well I',m persuaded, the truth will eventually get to the mass media right after all this Co2 reducing stuff is achieved and Co2 is still rising as a result of the sun acting up and people start asking questions, and it turns out that the sun is the cause of all this and therefore cannot be stopped, and since no one will believe us until the mass media gets a hold of this, in the meantime, let us laugh at their idiocy. hahaha, hahahahaha.

[Serpentine]

Another issue to throw in: Global Dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming), quite possibly actually hides some of the global warming effect.

[Recaiden]

Well, there has been a slight increase in CO2 due to human activities. Sources vary pretty widely on how much, but the vast majority is still natural atmospheric changes. But I had always heard that water vapor was a much stronger contributor to temperature change.

I agree that CO2 produced by humans probably has a negligible effect on temperatures, but it does cause other problems and there are other ways we can impact the climate that should be changed.

[hamishspence]

Coal & oil burned since the industral revolution- Lots. CO2 produced by volacnic eruptions- some, but not nearly as much.

Add in methane from the melting permafrost, and the change to greenhouse gas levels over the past 200 years is big (and expected to get much bigger if the melt continues.)

[Trizap]

Coal & oil burned since the industral revolution- Lots. CO2 produced by volacnic eruptions- some, but not nearly as much.

Add in methane from the melting permafrost, and the change to greenhouse gas levels over the past 200 years is big (and expected to get much bigger if the melt continues.)

again, all the product of the sun acting up, greenhouse gases make up only a little part of the atmosphere, doesn't influence anything at all.

if we were to shut down all the cities on earth and go back to the medieval ages, it would not change a thing.

[Mad Mask]

if we were to shut down all the cities on earth and go back to the medieval ages, it would not change a thing.

You're right; at least in our lifetime. It would take quite a lot time for Earth to reduce carbon dioxide to its previous amount.

Greenhouse gas do have an effect; it's because of them that the Earth isn't freezing right now and life as we know it can exist.

[Nameless]

Coal & oil burned since the industral revolution- Lots. CO2 produced by volacnic eruptions- some, but not nearly as much.

Add in methane from the melting permafrost, and the change to greenhouse gas levels over the past 200 years is big (and expected to get much bigger if the melt continues.)

Well, they only thing is , they can't actually prove that our Co2 has anything to do with temperature change.
And don't forget that the biggest contributor to methane are termites, they produce much more then the melting permafrost.

The fact is, yes, global warming is happening. But no, we can’t do anything about it.
So instead of trying to avoid the inevitable, use your time and energy on fixing what we can actually effect.

[hamishspence]

"the sun acting up" does not take CO2 out of carbon deposits. Burning them does. A little math on amount of coal burned and amount of oil burned will show that a very large amount of CO2 has been added to atmophere- the plants and ocean may compensate, partially, but CO2 concentration has been on the way up ever since the Industrial Revolution. Where else is it coming from?

About 75%, anyway, remaining extra CO2 caused by humans had to do with changes in land use.

[Jimorian]

again, all the product of the sun acting up, greenhouse gases make up only a little part of the atmosphere, doesn't influence anything at all.

That's the primary error right there. Just because CO2 is "only" .038% (it used to be ~.028% before the industrial revolution) doesn't mean that changes in its percentage won't make a large difference. Methane is only .00017% but it has an even greater effect per unit, enough to contribute 25% of greenhouse warming.

Ironically, one of the major success stories in reducing pollution was sulfur emissions (the source of acid rain), which has the effect of blocking sunlight and cooling the planet, which would have mitigated some of the warming and is possibly one of the reasons we didn't notice it before. This is why large volcanic eruptions cause downward spikes in global temperatures.

And yes, even if we stopped producing CO2 completely right now, the effect we've produced will last for at least the next couple of centuries if not longer. The sea level will rise displacing millions of people. Some places will be hotter, some places colder, some places drier, some places wetter.

It's not that all this change is a bad thing in itself, it's that it will all change faster than we or the ecosystem can comfortably manage. But manage it we will, there's not much choice now.

[Trizap]

"the sun acting up" does not take CO2 out of carbon deposits. Burning them does. A little math on amount of coal burned and amount of oil burned will show that a very large amount of CO2 has been added to atmophere- the plants and ocean may compensate, partially, but CO2 concentration has been on the way up ever since the Industrial Revolution. Where else is it coming from?

its coming from the ocean, dead vegetation, animals but then again co2 doesn't affect anything that and do you know what Co2 IS? its one carbon atom, two oxygen atoms, two elements that we are all made of, its a completely natural gas its not polluting and Co2 doesn't even make up 1% of the atmosphere, watch the video for more info, it will explain everything.

[hamishspence]

Hence the name "greenhouse gas" a small amount of gas can make a big difference to the amount of heat trapped.

A high enough concentration of CO2 will kill- regardless of prescence of oxygen. Now its never going to get that high in the Earth's atmosphere. But "non-polluting" is a bit of a misnomer.

[Nameless]

its coming from the ocean, dead vegetation, animals but then again co2 doesn't affect anything that and do you know what Co2 IS? its one carbon atom, two oxygen atoms, two elements that we are all made of, its a completely natural gas its not polluting and Co2 doesn't even make up 1% of the atmosphere, watch the video for more info, it will explain everything.

I also want to expand on this. It's a general misconception that Co2 is a pollutant. But as MM said, we wouldn’t be able to live with out it.
If anything, Co2 is good for the environment.


And yes, even if we stopped producing CO2 completely right now, the effect we've produced will last for at least the next couple of centuries if not longer. The sea level will rise displacing millions of people. Some places will be hotter, some places colder, some places drier, some places wetter.

It's not that all this change is a bad thing in itself, it's that it will all change faster than we or the ecosystem can comfortably manage. But manage it we will, there's not much choice now.

This is exactly what I'm trying to disprove here. :smalltongue:

[Murska]

The argument 'The human influence on the amount of greenhouse gasses is tiny' doesn't really work, since even such a tiny influence can unbalance the situation, speeding up the warming.

[Trizap]

{Scrubbed}

[hamishspence]

the point is- some of the changes are ones that haven't been seen for thousands of years.

Also- there are knock-on effects. Yes- the permafrost is not emitting much methane. But its emitting more than it did in the past, and the amount that will be emitted, assuming trends continue, will skyrocket.

also- with no change to concentration of oxygen- if you increase percentage of CO2 high enough, people start to suffer symptoms. Oxygen starvation and CO2 poisoning are two different things.

[Trizap]

I also want to expand on this. It's a general misconception that Co2 is a pollutant. But as MM said, we wouldn’t be able to live with out it.
If anything, Co2 is good for the environment.


well duh, of course its good for the environment, carbon, oxygen, two of the four basic elements of life.


This is exactly what I'm trying to disprove here. :smalltongue:

good, your someone sensible.

[hamishspence]

And so are sulphur and phosphorous. Enough of them, however kills, as does oxygen, and as do many other "necessary" elements. Necessary and "always harmless" are not the same thing.

[Serpentine]

its coming from the ocean, dead vegetation, animals but then again co2 doesn't affect anything that and do you know what Co2 IS? its one carbon atom, two oxygen atoms, two elements that we are all made of, its a completely natural gas its not polluting and Co2 doesn't even make up 1% of the atmosphere, watch the video for more info, it will explain everything.Almost every gas is "natural" this is a misunderstanding of chemistry along the lines of something I heard in year 12 - "So, chlorine is really poisonous and stuff, right? And sodium is really volitile and explodes and stuff? So what happens if you put it together, does it make a really really bad chemical?" For those who don't know, Chlorine and sodium make NaCl, or table salt. Similarly, ozone is 03, or three oxygen atoms. It is only a tiny, tiny part of the atmosphere, and is deadly poisonous to humans. Saying that "it is a completely natural gas" is like saying "it's fine if the ocean is covered in oil slicks because it's a totally natural substance". If you think there's no problem with carbon dioxide, seal your head in a plastic bag for a while.
Oh, and incidentally, there is, if I recall correctly, even less oxygen in the air than carbon dioxide. Does that mean it matters less?
edit: No, the last bit's wrong. On the other hand, there's a lot of nitrogen, which is completely useless to us in that form.

[Kaelaroth]

Oh, and incidentally, there is, if I recall correctly, even less oxygen in the air than carbon dioxide. Does that mean it matters less?

... There is? I thought there was 20-21% gaseous oxygen in the air, and less than half a per cent of carbon dioxide.

[Trizap]

the point is- some of the changes are ones that haven't been seen for thousands of years.

Also- there are knock-on effects. Yes- the permafrost is not emitting much methane. But its emitting more than it did in the past, and the amount that will be emitted, assuming trends continue, will skyrocket.

..................................

your first point is completely false.

the climate has always been changing, Medieval warm period, obviously the time during the middle ages when everything was warm. then there was the Little ice age during the renaissance, colonial times, and imperialism, the temperature increasing is just because we are going into a warm period.

and most of the temperature change, happens before 1940 which is when a great industrial boom started and guess what? for 30 years the temperature decreased while co2 was being pumped out like crazy until some economic crash, and co2 levels dropped........and the temperature started rising again, completely contradicting your theory that co2 is the cause.

[hamishspence]

Oxygen is much higher in concentration (25% odd to CO2's 0.01% or less)

Its not really the CO2 as such, as the temperature changes attributable to it, that are the problem in the atmosphere.

Underwater, on the other hand, we have ocean acidification and other problematic effects.

[Nameless]

I think it’s partly to do with our ego. We see something bad happen, something we’re not used to and we automatically assume that’s we’re to blame. Yes, humans are that powerful that they could actually threaten this amazing planet.
I mean, how many adverts and articles have we all seen that talk about how we’re destroying the planet, it’s actually sickening, do these people have no idea of what the earth’s actually been through? I’ve already said this before but think about it, it’s been floating around a giant ball off radiation and heat in the vastness of space constantly being hit by meteors and comets, it’s lived through earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, mass extinctions, ice ages, global warming/cooling, forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, the process after it was created, magnetic shifts and these people actually think that our tiny little machines which we’ve had for 200 or so years can actually destroy this billion year old planet? I mean, damaging the climate is one thing… But destroy?!? And then they talk about how we can save the planet?
Seriously, are these people for real?


good, your someone sensible.

Well after my long rant on post #1 I would assume you would already know I'm trying to disprove it. :smalltongue:

[Jimorian]

The definition of "pollution" and the definition of "poison" follow a similar rule. Too much of something, even something that life requires makes it fall under the definition.

Oxygen is a poison if you get too much, water can be a poison, too.

CO2 is pollution when it affects the environment negatively. If we were dumping pure oxygen into the atmosphere instead, there would still be a point where we'd have to call it pollution.

[hamishspence]

true- changes are small- in the extremely long term.

In the short term, however, ecological damage can be pretty problematic. Mass extinction level, in fact. Small potatoes compared to the Great Permian Extinction. But this is not exactly something to be proud of.

Wikipedia had a lot to say on the temperature changes of the past, and the variance in solar output. and the rapidity of current changes, especially in the arctic, are in fact pretty unprecedented in the history of human civilization- Medieval warm period included.

[Mx.Silver]

Wasn't expecting another thread on this after the last one a few months back (which got locked). Advise you look-up on it, as some links there are relevent. One in particular on youtube by a science journalist ( Link (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A4F0994AFB057BB8) ) is very relevent to some of the issues you raise here and probably the most informatice and unbiased source I've seen on the topic in a long time. The second video in particular is something I'd advise you watch.

There was a recent quite heated discussion over on the Science! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106697) thread about Co2 effecting the coral reefs where I also hinted my thoughts on Co2 and climate change so some of what I talk about here might be a little repetitive. There was also another thread recently opened, but I though that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to discuss this there.
I’ve also come to realise from when, (and the only time) I attempted to discuss this with someone who does believe Co2 is effecting the climate, it can actually be quite a sensitive topic and I end up not actually being able to go further then “See, I don’t fully agree---” before getting told off. So if you disagree with what I’m saying, feel free to post a comment, but don’t take this post personally.
Don't worry, I won't.




Okay so let’s start.[snipped]
Didn't bother with this, your personal arguements with your school science teacher are not particularly relevent. For reasons that should be obvious.



But hold on, Carbon Dioxide effecting the climate is one of the major discussion hot spots, we’re taught about it almost every chemistry and physics lesson, it’s on almost every paper… But my teacher can’t even give me solid proof of Co2 providing the ozone layer with another greenhouse gass? She showed me solid evidence for almost everything else, but not something this important? So I realised something that we were never actually told in school, in the media or by politicians. Co2 effecting the climate wasn’t fact, It was theory. It couldn’t actually be scientifically proven.
*snaps pencil*
Sorry, but for the love of whatever you hold sacred could people please stop making this mistake? In scientific terms 'theory' is a very different beast to the colloquial usage of the word. A scientific theory is similar in meaning to 'driving theory' or 'music theory' than 'hunch or guess'. A theory in science is a model which explains existing phenomena and can be used to make accurate predictions that cannot at present be disproved by rational, empirical experimentation and inquiry.

Sorry if I get a little worked up about this, but it's an incredibly important distinction. It's also one that more extreme members of certain groups opposed to particular parts of scientific knowledge have no qualms about confusing and exploiting to try and win public support.

Man-made climate change is currently a hypothesis. It has a fair bit of evidence to support it but not enough to earn it full-fledged theory status.



[snip]
So, a couple of years later I finally finished school, past my exams, enjoyed my summer break, went on holiday, blah blah blah and after went to college where I’m currently studding.
Studying what, if you don't mind my asking? Would I be correct in assuming it's not a science subject? This isn't anyway an attempt to belittle you, I'm not studying a science myself either. It would explain the above 'theory' mistake though.


Shortly after, I wanted to look at global warming again, learn more about it. Except now I could look at it as a theory rather then fact. And this is when I started to realise major problems with the theory.
Hypothesis.


One of the claims climate scientists make is that because of our Co2, we’ll see many natural disasters worse then EVER and they use all of the disasters that we see today as an example… But hold on a minuet, through out Earths long history there have been countless of natural disasters, many of which are far worse then even Hurricane Katrina. And if I’m not mistaken… Isn’t Global Warming and Global Cooling completely natural? Haven’t wee seen these changes in climate throughout history.
Yes. We've also seen deforestation and animal extinction occur without human intervention too. The fact that something can and does happen without human involvement can in no way be taken to mean that human action can't bring it about.


Back in the 70’s everyone was going mad about global cooling, it was all over the papers.
But none of the scientific ones. The global cooling hysteria of the 70s is actually something of a myth (see third video from the link at the top). There were actually far more articles in scientific journals arguing about the dangers of global warming than cooling during the 'global cooling scare' interestingly enough.



Go back further to the 18th centaury and there was a madness about global warming.
Science has kind of advanced a bit in the intervening 200 years, just so you know.


We can go back even further into the middle ages where there was global warming again, even further then that and the themes in London was completely frozen over during winters and the summers were freezing. In fact, during the winters they would open up markets on the Themes.
Yeah, the 'little ice age'. Pretty well-known area of european history. Had some pretty interesting effects on Europe at the time, but that's another topic.



We weren’t always burning oil and coal.
And if you want to be sure it’s got nothing to do with humans, you can look back even further at all the Ice Ages. A perfect example of Global Warming/cooling to the extreme and we weren’t even around. Much worse then what we’re seeing now.
No. I'm a bit confused here, as to my knowledge no climate scientists can or have ever denied that climate change occurs without human involvement as it obviously does. The fact that it can and does happen without human involvement however does not mean that humans can't cause it as well. The issue has never been whether all climate change is man-made but rather whether this particular phase we're going through is.




Okay, so lets look at the science part.
Right.



This is a graph showing the change in surface air temperature in the arctic which is represented by the blue line. The yellow line represents the change in man made Co2 emissions:
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x203/tomshaer/graph1.jpg
You looks at it for the first time and say “hey look, there is a correlation“. But if you look at it closely, you’ll see that there really isn’t. The rough shape is the same, but if you look at it in detail there isn’t much of a similarity.

Where'd you get this graph from? First rule of scientific debate: cite your sources.
There is actually a correlation there, but you'd be right in assuming there it's not exact.



Now here’s another graph showing the same thing again, but now with a red line that shows the change in the sun’s activity:
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x203/tomshaer/graph2.jpg
For love of cake man, sources!



I dunno about you, but to me it seems like it has more to do with the sun then with our own Co2.
Sun effects climate. Not for debate, is obvious. The question now (see vid 2 especially) is solar output as observed has changed to match the recent temperature changes. Most observations now suggest it doesn't (hence why I'm interested in your source for the above).



A while ago I also read an article talking about Co2 and climate change, it said that although it seems that Co2 is effecting the climate, that’s not actually what’s happening. If you look closely enough you’ll realise that Co2 actually increases and decreases after the temperatures increases and decreases. I found a similar article Here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659) which states (as it‘s title):

Erm, yeah. This is fairly common knowledge higher temperatures lead to higher natural Co2 output (hence why warming periods tend to be self-perpetuating). Natural Co2 emmissions aren't really the issue here though are they? Man made ones are and (as your own first graph itself shows) since about the 1950s these have been rising ahead of the temperature. In fact, to quote the very article you linked to:


This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.

I suggest having a read through that article for those of you who haven't. If that doesn't include you, Nameless then I'd be kind of interested why you use it to say that Co2 can't heat the planet when the article itself says that, in fact, it can and does - going so far as to attribute both past temperature changes and more recent ones as being products of rising levels Co2 and other Greenhouse gasses.



Other then that, one of the first things I discovered was that 30,000 scientists who were studding/working on/researching the global warming theory have actually said that they completely disagree with it and don’t find it true. Which is very interesting because if you are one of the scientists who work on global warming, and get paid to do so, why would say it isn’t true and leave if you get paid to work on it?
Source now. No I mean it, source now.



I think one of the main reasons of why so many people believe in the theory with out question,
I don't. I go with it because it's the view of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. That and because the costs acting as if it is correct and being wrong are vastly outweighed by the costs of doing nothing and discovering it is, in fact, right.


other then not being given all the facts is that people generally love to hear bad news.Like a bigger broom for that sweeping generalisation?:smalltongue:


When you turn on the news channel, what do you find more interesting, the good news, or the bad news? Depends on the event in question.


I’m not saying people always prefer to hear bad news
You kind of just did.


but they do tend to find it more interesting, including myself.
You find bad news more interesting. What other people find more interesting is not really your place or my place to make statements on. Oh and finding something interesting doesn't mean you believe it.They don't correlate at all.



The other reason is that even Politicians agree with it, and they don’t usually say that something bad is happening, so when they do you’re more likely to believe it.
Yeah, they don't usually say something bad is happening. In fact there are quite a few politicians who have argued a lot against the hypothesis, but the number has dropped. This does kind of put the question to you as to why?

Could it have something to do with the growing consensus of climate scientists, you think? I've alread admitted that's my reason for subscribing to the hypothesis, and I doubt I'm the only one. What's motivating them to be proponents of this hypothesis, given that they're experts on this?




Earth has been around for billions of years. Billions of years of a whole load of horrible things, much worse then what we see today. Compare Billions of years of everything it’s been through with 100... 200 years of us polluting. I honestly don’t think the Earth is bothered much by what we’re doing after going through everything it’s been through.
Dodo. Passenger Pigeon. Tasmanian wolf. Three species complete eradicated by human action alone (by no means the only ones). This isn't even getting into the hundreds of endangered species that are still struggling and the enormous amounts of habit destruction (e.g. rainforests) being cause pretty much exclusively by human action. The planet itself isn't going to be effected but the biosphere (i.e. everything alive) is both much smaller and one hell of a lot more fragile.

There’s an interesting documentary I found which talks about some of the things I am and more Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME) although it has a little bit of “crazy conspiracy theories”, but over all it’s pretty good and I do recommend it. There’s quite a bit of politics going on in the video so please, if you do want to discuss anything from there, make sure it’s not the political parts.


It’s just a shame I didn’t know about it at the beginning before I started doing research, would of have saved me a lot of time. :smalltongue:
You what, found 2 graphs and an article that didn't actually support your arguement which would have been obvious had you read beyond it's title? If that's heavy research for you mate I wouldn't want to see a rush job.
Actually, in fairness, that's not a fair criticism of me to make. You aren't a climate scientist so it's not fair to expect you to put that level of effort into your research as, frankly, you can't do the first-hand research they can. However, this also raises the question of why you seem to be so sure you are right on this while the vast majority of experts are wrong.

As for that video, if I'm not very much mistaken it's segments from a british 'documentary' (The Climate Swindle, irrc) (which attracted one crapload of criticism for misrepresenting the views of some of the actual scientists) which didn't effect scientitific thought at all which has been uploaded to youtube by a conspiracy theorist (which you yourself acknowledge) who apparrently doesn't disables ratings and comments (always a bad sign on youtube videos pertaining to be factual). Over this side of the pond, the arguments over said documentary have been kind of done to death, but, there'll be some articles on it floating around somewhere I'd imagine.

[Trizap]

I think it’s partly to do with our ego. We see something bad happen, something we’re not used to and we automatically assume that’s we’re to blame. Yes, humans are that powerful that they could actually threaten this amazing planet.
I mean, how many adverts and articles have we all seen that talk about how we’re destroying the planet, it’s actually sickening, do these people have no idea of what the earth’s actually been through? I’ve already said this before but think about it, it’s been floating around a giant ball off radiation and heat in the vastness of space constantly being hit by meteors and comets, it’s lived through earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, mass extinctions, ice ages, global warming/cooling, forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, the process after it was created, magnetic shifts and these people actually think that our tiny little machines which we’ve had for 200 or so years can actually destroy this billion year old planet? I mean, damaging the climate is one thing… But destroy?!? And then they talk about how we can save the planet?
Seriously, are these people for real?



Well after my long rant on post #1 I would assume you would already know I'm trying to disprove it. :smalltongue:

I know right? there isn't really anything to worry about, this is all completely natural and won't cause the apocalypse,

I'm really not worried, you can all talk about how Co2 is destroying everything and such, but really with all your efforts at preventing it, you just might save it from the threat.

now here is the funny part: if your right, and if Co2 is affecting things negatively and your efforts are saving the planet, then we have nothing to worry about.

but if I'm right, and co2 is completely natural and won't change anything, we still don't have nothing to worry about as nothing bad will happen anyways.

either way, I win.

[hamishspence]

There are other possibilities.

CO2 negative effects are arrestable- partially- but will require massive effort that isn't being put in, yet. Hence, something to worry about.

CO2 negative effects can be slowed but not stopped with the massive effort- buying time for us to adapt, prepare etc. Again, if nothing is actually being done, costs may be unacceptably high.

Etc.

[Serpentine]

but if I'm right, and co2 is completely natural and won't change anything, we still don't have nothing to worry about as nothing bad will happen anyways.But you're not right. Saying that "CO2 is natural and therefore harmless" is like saying... well, that methane is natural and therefore harmless. Go look up mining deaths due to bad air. Or, as I said, stick a plastic bag on your head.
Oh, and to repeat myself yet again, and supply yet more evidence that human-produced CO2 is anything but benign, ocean acidification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification).

[hamishspence]

Might be interesting to see economic studies- likely consequence of a massive collapse of certain ocean ecosystems, and compare them to the costs needed to stop the collapse.

Or, a "this cannot be saved- this might be saved if we take the steps- this is only in danger if we take no steps at all", list.

[Jimorian]

I know right? there isn't really anything to worry about, this is all completely natural and won't cause the apocalypse,

There are 100 million people in Bangladesh who might disagree with this statement.


Might be interesting to see economic studies- likely consequence of a massive collapse of certain ocean ecosystems, and compare them to the costs needed to stop the collapse.

Or, a "this cannot be saved- this might be saved if we take the steps- this is only in danger if we take no steps at all", list.

That's where things get interesting. We're going to lose about half of Florida, so where do all those people move to and who pays? What happens if the great plains where we grow much of our food turns to desert? If the melting arctic ice cap causes the Atlantic conveyor to stop, which carries the warm gulf stream waters to Europe, Europe might turn into Siberia West.

The "disaster" is having all these effects come simultaneously at a time when we're already straining the limits of a lot of natural resources, particularly food production. Displace hundreds of millions of people from rising sea levels, then finding new homes, getting food to them from different sources that are also disappearing, and the potential for conflict is huge.

It's not just the "inconvenience" of not having the weather you expect where you live, it will be a life and death factor for millions of people.

[hamishspence]

And people dependant on the coral regions for their livelihood- fishing, tourism, etc.

And its not just these- given the number of coastal cities vulnerable to storms + higher sea levels, many of which are capitals, the problem threatens the rich West as well.

[Mx.Silver]

But you're not right. Saying that "CO2 is natural and therefore harmless" is like saying... well, that methane is natural and therefore harmless. Go look up mining deaths due to bad air. Or, as I said, stick a plastic bag on your head.
Oh, and to repeat myself yet again, and supply yet more evidence that human-produced CO2 is anything but benign, ocean acidification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification).

Arsenic, lead, cyanide, and tar are all naturally occuring too. As is uranium, unless I'm very much mistaken.


Might be interesting to see economic studies- likely consequence of a massive collapse of certain ocean ecosystems, and compare them to the costs needed to stop the collapse.

Now there's a messy ethics debate waiting to happen. Does non-human only matter in relation to human economic costs? What about aesthetic benefits? And the arguments that these have worth independant of how they effect humans. There have been a few studies I think (the last thread brought up one economist's views a few times) but they often get lost amidst these philosophical conflicts.


Or, a "this cannot be saved- this might be saved if we take the steps- this is only in danger if we take no steps at all", list.
Yeah, but again predicting the exact effects this will have are tricky. There's a lot of range between best case and worst case scenarioes and it's rather difficult to pin down where between those two we're likely to end-up. A lot of it also depends on how soon action is taken.

[hamishspence]

true, but if for example we can say "We humans personally stand to lose a lot more from doing nothing than doing something"

or even "We westerners will lose far more than we gain from doing nothing than from doing something"

then there is literally no reason not to act, but plenty of reasons to act.

[Gorgondantess]

Earth has been around for billions of years. Billions of years of a whole load of horrible things, much worse then what we see today. Compare Billions of years of everything it’s been through with 100... 200 years of us polluting. I honestly don’t think the Earth is bothered much by what we’re doing after going through everything it’s been through.

Brother, that's the kind of thing I've been trying to tell people ever since the whole "global warming craze" started. It's simple logic. Pity that a lot of people won't even get it.
I'd also advise you read an article by Michael Crichton called "Aliens Caused Global Warming". (The title is meant to be ironic). Anyhow, it's a really interesting article on the thing... very well thought out.

[Mx.Silver]

Brother, that's the kind of thing I've been trying to tell people ever since the whole "global warming craze" started. It's simple logic. Pity that a lot of people won't even get it.
Because it fails. The planet proper (i.e. the lump of rock upon which we stand) is not threatened by this. The state of the biosphere in our own liftimes however is entirely vulnerable to severe and drastic change (as has happened many times in the planet's history). When people are talking about 'saving the planet' they generally mean preventing damage to the current state of the biosphere, not stopping the entire thing from exploding. While the planet itself will last until the sun explodes the lifeforms and habitiats currently on it are a very different matter altogether.

[Nameless]

{Scrubbed}

[Recaiden]

{Scrubbed}

[Mad Mask]

99% of all animals that ahve lived on this planet are gone. (I originaly though it was 90%).
99%... We didn't kill them all.

I don't see your point. Complex Animals have been around for more than 500 million years, while humans ? Not even two. We simply haven't been around a long time enough to kill them all.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked. And for the record, this one was brought down not by political intrusion (though politicians were mentioned in the OP) but by needless hostility/flaming.