Global Warming - is CO2 the cause?

AlmightyCushion · 23-09-2007 02:59PM

Pinker wrote:

That was a teeny weeny minority of scientists who said it may be possible, and people keep digging it up as if it somewhow debunks climate change

Nope I'm just saying that they were wrong there is a chance that these guys are wrong as well. Just to let you know I think we should reduce our carbon footprint as well just to be in the safe side but not to the point where it affects development especially in third world countries.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-09-2007 03:10PM

Sam Kade wrote:

Most climate scientists, 17,000 scientists signed a petition to dissagree with manmade global warming.

Since 1998 how many have changed their minds ?
And were they all climate scientists ?

One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.

If you extrapolate back from the current atmosphere Venus once had oceans. It's just lost a lot of hydrogen over billions of years.

Tom65 · 23-09-2007 08:43PM

I thought that C4 program had long since been proved to be fairly...untrustworthy? Nonetheless:

1. Rebuttal by John Houghton (former IPCC chairman)
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
2. Cark Wunsch, one of the oceanographers who appeared on the show, clarifies what he said:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
3. A critique by George Monbiot, an excellent environmental and investigative journalist:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

To the poster who said that 17,000 climate scientists signed a petition disputing global warming I ask did you read the signatories? I quote George Monbiot:

Like almost all the climate change deniers, he based his claim on a petition produced in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and “signed by over 18,000 scientists”. Had Bellamy studied the signatories, he would have discovered that the “scientists” include Ginger Spice and the cast of MASH.(10) The Oregon Institute is run by a fundamentalist Christian called Arthur Robinson. Its petition was attached to what purported to be a scientific paper, printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, the paper had not been peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journal.(11) Anyone could sign the petition, and anyone did: only a handful of the signatories are experts in climatology,(12) and quite a few of them appear to have believed that they were signing a genuine paper.(13) And yet, six years later, this petition is still being wheeled out to suggest that climatologists say global warming isn’t happening.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/08/10/goodbye-kind-world/

Sam Kade · 23-09-2007 11:28PM

Tom65 wrote:

I thought that C4 program had long since been proved to be fairly...untrustworthy? Nonetheless:

1. Rebuttal by John Houghton (former IPCC chairman)
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
2. Cark Wunsch, one of the oceanographers who appeared on the show, clarifies what he said:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
3. A critique by George Monbiot, an excellent environmental and investigative journalist:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

To the poster who said that 17,000 climate scientists signed a petition disputing global warming I ask did you read the signatories? I quote George Monbiot:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/08/10/goodbye-kind-world/

He's a journalist if I told you that Mickey mouse signed the petition would you believe me? Geri Halliwell PhD was signed by a prankster but has since been removed, Monbiot saw a few famous names and decided this was a good story to earn a bit of money. Check out www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Pinker · 23-09-2007 11:50PM

AlmightyCushion wrote:

Nope I'm just saying that they were wrong there is a chance that these guys are wrong as well. Just to let you know I think we should reduce our carbon footprint as well just to be in the safe side but not to the point where it affects development especially in third world countries.

Yes they were wrong, they were a tiny group who had made a sensational claim which was far from widely accepted, it takes a long,long time before a scientific theory gets any sort of support, global warming has FAR more supporters than detractors, it is for real. There is of course a chance they are wrong, but there is much greater chance they are not, much greater.

If any group on this planet are going are going to suffer from a rise in global temperatures it is developing countries, this is no myth, and any doubts you have will be be eroded over the coming decades.

And in the meantime, consider the power of one.

bonkey · 24-09-2007 10:54AM

AlmightyCushion wrote:

Nope I'm just saying that they were wrong there is a chance that these guys are wrong as well. J

Yes, there's a chance that the modern-day scientific consensus is wrong, but its not because of your misunderstanding of the state of climatic science in the 70s.

timmywex wrote:

cows* farting

Burping, not farting. Cows burp methane.

Honestly, what do they teach in schools these days.

Macha · 24-09-2007 11:03AM

STOP DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

Humans are the worst species on this planet. We are selfish, greedy and ignorant. Laziness, pride and guilt are usually behind any denial of climate change.

Read the FACTS not the HYPE and start today.
Your children will thank you

bonkey · 24-09-2007 11:07AM

Your use of capitals, your anger, and the fact that the link says "the science" has convinced me.

Macha · 24-09-2007 11:12AM

bonkey wrote:

Your use of capitals, your anger, and the fact that the link says "the science" has convinced me.

Your comments are unhelpful. You are clearly looking for anything to criticise. No matter what I would have written, you would have found fault.

Yes I am angry. I'm angry that people are putting more effort into questioning climate change than doing something about it.

That link is to the "Inconvenient Truth" website. The fact that it has the word 'science' in it is totally irrelevant - the fact that you bring this up as negative is ridiculous

McSandwich · 24-09-2007 11:37AM

chris85 wrote:

Got a wild theory here. The experts say that if the polar ice caps melt then a lot more of the earth will be covered in water.

Ok well we know that these polar ice caps are large icebergs with 90% of them under water.

We also know that Water expands when frozen.

So in theory if the polar ice cap melts totally the water from it below the surface will take up less space than than the original iceberg below the surface. If we factor in the water from the iceberg above the surface than this water can occupy the space gained from the reduction in volume below the surface due to the ice going to water comprssing and taking up less volume.

Its hard to say exactly what I mean but I hope its clear enough.

Let me know what you think.

Water is unusual in that it expands when it freezes and when it is heated. Also, water doesn't compress much under pressure (if at all).

The main result of polar melting is reduction in salt concentration of sea water resulting in water that is less dense - which in turn reduces the effect of undersea currents like the Gulf Stream.

Some climate myth links:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11637
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

bonkey · 24-09-2007 11:54AM

taconnol wrote:

Your comments are unhelpful.

And here I was hoping you'd realise that this is what I was saying to you....

You are clearly looking for anything to criticise. No matter what I would have written, you would have found fault.

So now after the capitalisations and the anger, you move on to making unfounded assumptions about my position.

For the record, I support the theories of AGW and have done so consistently on this site. I attacked your position because the last thing my position needs is the drama-queen style of argumentation that you seemed to think was/is helpful.

The fact that it has the word 'science' in it is totally irrelevant - the fact that you bring this up as negative is ridiculous

I'm skeptical of anything which has to label itself that way. Its one step short of labelling itself as "the truth". All sides of the AGW argument can produce what they claim to be "the science" which supports their position. Thus, the term is meaningless.

Tom65 · 24-09-2007 12:18PM

Sam Kade wrote:

He's a journalist if I told you that Mickey mouse signed the petition would you believe me? Geri Halliwell PhD was signed by a prankster but has since been removed, Monbiot saw a few famous names and decided this was a good story to earn a bit of money. Check out www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

No industrial or outside funding? It was supported by the George C. Marshall Institute, which has recieved $600,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. It's lead other was Arthur Robinson, as mentioned, who is a Christian fundamentalist with no background in climate change. Another of the authors was Robinson's 22 year-old son. The final two were members of the George C. Marshall Institute.

It was published in the style of the US National Academy of Sciences and posted to the Wall Street Journal and other publications. The National Academy of Sciences was forced to issue a statement saying it had nothing to do with the paper, and saying "the petition does not reflect the expert reports of the Academy".

Frederick Seitz (a former president of the NAS) also worked for the tobacco company PJ Reynolds until 1987. He was in charge of which medical research projects the company would fund, and also to "refute the criticisms of cigarettes", according to one memo from the company president.

ali.c · 24-09-2007 12:46PM

The big problem with climate models is that the worlds climate is not static, in fact it goes through a number of cycles. Currently we are in an inter-glacial stage and within that there are a number of smaller cycles. All of this makes it difficult to quanitify the role that humans are playing in climate change. Add to that, the fact that the the global carbon cycle is a also a complex cycle, the amount of the carbon released by humans is a small portion of the worlds carbon.

This is not to say that humans arenot contributing to climate change, what it does do is provide plenty of ammunition to people who want to question whether it is really happening.

In my opinion on the matter is that we are likely going through a climate warming cycle, however the contribution of GHG emissions is escabarating or accelarating this problem. Also i see no reason not to reduce GHG, in a lot of instances this could be done in a cost effective manner, also in case anyone missed it we are running out of Fossil Fuels so the effort put in to developing new cleaner energy generating technologies is gonna have to happen one way or the other.

Wossack · 24-09-2007 12:58PM

whos behind the climate change?

I think the real question is who would benefit most from the global rise in the temperature?

the truth is so obvious that your eyes just overlook it as if it where an out-of-date litre of milk in the staff fridge

So whos behind climate change?
coldblooded shapeshifting lizardmen, thats who!

super fun mega happy times for all

zuutroy · 24-09-2007 01:07PM

LOL@ the climate change aggro heads. They're getting more like the flat earth society every day. If you don't believe you're a humanity hating genocidal heretic.

Macha · 24-09-2007 01:45PM

bonkey wrote:

For the record, I support the theories of AGW and have done so consistently on this site. I attacked your position because the last thing my position needs is the drama-queen style of argumentation that you seemed to think was/is helpful.

I'm skeptical of anything which has to label itself that way. Its one step short of labelling itself as "the truth". All sides of the AGW argument can produce what they claim to be "the science" which supports their position. Thus, the term is meaningless.

"Drama Queen"..thanks name calling really helps. And I suppose your tsking at which exact orifice methane escapes a cow is really going to move the climate change discussion along :rolleyes:

The whole point is that the scientifc (oops I used the 'science word') discussion of whether humans are responsible for climate change is over. It only persists in the media and in the public's minds. We need to move on from this and start doing something about it.

I really can't believe your argument against the use of the word science. What else do you rely on for facts? Divine inspiration? Voodoo dolls? Tea leaves? Yes you can pick and choose your facts to suit your argument but the landslide of scientific evidence for climate change is overwhelming.

zuutroy · 24-09-2007 01:53PM

taconnol wrote:

"
The whole point is that the scientifc (oops I used the 'science word') discussion of whether humans are responsible for climate change is over.

the landslide of scientific evidence for climate change is overwhelming.

For every shred of scientific evidence that lays the blame on mankind there's an equally viable piece that can attribute it to natural causes. The truth is that at the moment, its beyond science to model something so complicated and predict future behaviour, and I dont believe its set in stone yet that A) we're doomed, b) its our fault.

indough · 24-09-2007 01:59PM

taconnol wrote:

Humans are the worst species on this planet. We are selfish, greedy and ignorant. Laziness, pride and guilt are usually behind any denial of climate change.

I always thought it was the desire to remain objective and not jump to sensationalist conclusions.

Macha · 24-09-2007 02:00PM

zuutroy wrote:

For every shred of scientific evidence that lays the blame on mankind there's an equally viable piece that can attribute it to natural causes. The truth is that at the moment, its beyond science to model something so complicated and predict future behaviour, and I dont believe its set in stone yet that A) we're doomed, b) its our fault.

OK, can I ask you to supply some evidence that is down to natural causes? I mean, I too would love to think that it wasn't my fault.

Also, what do you say to the fact that according to this graph, temperatures and CO2 levels are way above anything they have ever been, including ice ages, etc etc

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yearsbig.gif

What exactly is it that you think is causing this unprecedented rise, if not human activity?

indough · 24-09-2007 02:02PM

taconnol wrote:

Also, what do you say to the fact that according to this graph, temperatures and CO2 levels are way above anything they have ever been, including ice ages, etc etc

That graph only goes back 20000 years afaik

Edit: Also notice that the final jump in CO2 levels is not accompanied by a proportional jump in temperature

Macha · 24-09-2007 02:08PM

indough wrote:

That graph only goes back 20000 years afaik

Edit: Also notice that the final jump in CO2 levels is not accompanied by a proportional jump in temperature

OK I'll try and root out one that goes back further.

So are you saying that you also dispute the correlation between higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and higher temperatures?

Also, can you tell me what natural causes there are of climate change that explain the high increases we have seen?

Edit: I assume people here would consider WWF data sufficiently impartial? Extract from following document:

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_brief___ipcc_wg1_3feb07.pdf

"In fact, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most important greenhouse gas, is now higher than at any point duringthe last 650,000 years and 35% higher than before the Industrial Revolution. Because of the Greenhouse Effect –the warming of the Earth caused by trapping of heat, due to thesun’s radiation, by the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere –scientists have attributed the recent warming of the earth withthe unprecedented rate of increase of greenhouse gases. Consequently, the IPCC states that it is “very likely” that humans have caused most of theobserved increase in global temperatures over the last 50 years."

zuutroy · 24-09-2007 02:10PM

taconnol wrote:

OK, can I ask you to supply some evidence that is down to natural causes? I mean, I too would love to think that it wasn't my fault.

As I said, its a task beyond modern science to model such complex macroscopic system with an iota of accuracy. Attributing it anthropogenic or natural causes is next to impossible.

taconnol wrote:

Also, what do you say to the fact that according to this graph, temperatures and CO2 levels are way above anything they have ever been, including ice ages, etc etc

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yearsbig.gif

20,000 years is ever?...It's the blink of an eye in global climatic terms

taconnol wrote:

What exactly is it that you think is causing this unprecedented rise, if not human activity?

Again, the word 'unprecedented' is not right. I'm not a climatologist so I've got even less of a clue than they do, but I am a scientist, and know well the woes of blindly following one side of a theoretical argument.

indough · 24-09-2007 02:17PM

I'm saying that we don't have conclusive evidence to prove that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. We do, however, have evidence that global temperature changes were occurring long before we were around. We know that humans have risen CO2 levels, it's got nothing to do with wanting to believe it's not my fault either. Your insinuation that all who believe global warming is natural are selfish or whatever is plain arrogance.

red_ice · 24-09-2007 02:18PM

muppetkiller wrote:

What's Global Warming ? And where can we get some ?

you can download it on fileplanet, but the wait is like 4 hours

Macha · 24-09-2007 02:19PM

Zuutroy - why do you consider it so impossible to attribute it to humans?

We know that increased levels in CO2 in the atmosphere lead to an increase in temperature.

We know that human activity is releasing huge amounts of C02 into the atmosphere, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels.

We know that CO2 levels are higher than they have been for the last 650 000 years and have increased dramatically since the start of the industrial age (and the start of burning of huge amounts of fossil fuels).

Do you disupte any of the above statements?

I just don't see any other explanation, nor is anyone here providing any...

indough · 24-09-2007 02:23PM

taconnol wrote:

Edit: I assume people here would consider WWF data sufficiently impartial? Extract from following document:

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_brief___ipcc_wg1_3feb07.pdf

Why would you assume that? They have their own agenda, they're not the slightest bit impartial

Macha · 24-09-2007 02:26PM

indough wrote:

Why would you assume that? They have their own agenda, they're not the slightest bit impartial

Apologies for perceived arrogance. I'm just really passionate about this. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

Well their data comes from the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Do you consider them to be impartial? Is there any source you consider impartial? Please dont' say the media..(!)

zuutroy · 24-09-2007 02:29PM

taconnol wrote:

Zuutroy - why do you consider it so impossible to attribute it to humans?

We know that increased levels in CO2 in the atmosphere lead to an increase in temperature.

Not a fact.

taconnol wrote:

We know that human activity is releasing huge amounts of C02 into the atmosphere, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels.

Amounts which are still very small in comparison to existing CO2 and CO2 from other sources, and are being implicated to having a huge effect

taconnol wrote:

We know that CO2 levels are higher than they have been for the last 650 000 years and have increased dramatically since the start of the industrial age (and the start of burning of huge amounts of fossil fuels).

Can be solar, volcanic, oceanic. The truth is that our measurement methodology has only become any way accurate in the last 50 years, and the older the data is, the larger the error associated with it.
Its not that I dont think humans could possibly be responsible, I just hate to see everyone blindly follow the hype without giving any thought to the other side of the coin. Especially when most of the pro-anthropogenic crew are so arrogant and hateful to anyone who says different.

indough · 24-09-2007 02:29PM

We know that climate change occurs naturally, we don't now why. That doesn't mean that your theory on why it is happening is right by default.

We don't know that global temperature rises are caused by increased CO2 levels, we know that they are accompanied by increased CO2 levels.

I do believe that we should treat the environment better, but I won't believe it's at death's door by our hand until it is a scientifically proven fact, which it is not.

Macha · 24-09-2007 02:41PM

zuutroy wrote:

Not a fact.

Are you saying that there is simply a correlation and no causal relationship?

zuutroy wrote:

Amounts which are still very small in comparison to existing CO2 and CO2 from other sources, and are being implicated to having a huge effect

I would dispute this. In 1800, atmospheric CO2 levels were approx. 280ppmv. Today's levels are around 380ppmv. This is an increase of almost 36% In addition, it is a level that has not been seen in 400,000 years, according to data from Antartic Ice Cores.

zuutroy wrote:

Can be solar, volcanic, oceanic. The truth is that our measurement methodology has only become any way accurate in the last 50 years, and the older the data is, the larger the error associated with it.

The temperatures taken from the Antartic ice cores was recorded in 1999. It is not old data

Global Warming - is CO2 the cause?

Comments