As for stopping global warming, that also sounds like a bad idea. At present, we live in a warm spell in the second worst ice age Earth has ever experienced. Both poles are completely uninhabitable due to ice. This includes an ocean, a continent, and the world’s biggest island, all nearly lifeless. The truth is, a thawed-out Earth has a much greater capacity for supporting life.

I am not suggesting that it is our duty as Earthlings to put as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as we possibly can, just to bring balance to the atmospheric gases and help the plants and everything that depends upon them live and thrive. I am merely suggesting that it is not our duty as Earthlings to strictly preserve the status quo and prevent nature from taking its course.

News articles are starting to talk about global cooling and that the world has been on the decline for the last 7 years. Interesting that only 3 years ago (when temps were on decline already for 4 years) how steeped people are in this whole Global warming FAD.

[quote]Correct me if I’m wrong, but: #38 October 7th, 2008 5:04 am
i find it funny that there is a global warming scare now compared to the global cooling scare just 30-50 years ago. Did you know that the global warming theory began sometime in the mid 20th century when scientists were disturbed that the earth was entering a cooling trend which they thought could lead to an ice age, and one man, (can;t remember his name) said that if they pumped out a shit load of fossil fuels into the enviroment it could potentialy increase the earth’s temperature. Possibly. And the ice caps were a lot smaller a few hundred years ago and the polar bears tuffed it out then.
I also noticed that you chose to respond to wargamer’s comments not dtaylor’s who (no offense meant wargamer) made several more good points [/quote]

Too many people staring at the charts over the last few minutes of earth history time. These cycles go back and back and back. Read up on how much greenhouse gas is released by one valcanoe.

This is no excuse to abuse the environment…but its DI that people will put out bad data to further their cuase when they clearly have access to data that refutes their hypothesis. Makes one wonder what they had to gain….almost definately $$, but WHY?

Oh the humanity! Lets quit being selfish jackasses and quite lying to eachother etc.

that’s incorrect CO2 only makes up like, .02% of greenhouse gasses

Besides arguments over whether we are or are not having a direct effect on global warming are pointless. It is happening and we do need to do something about it. We are lurching to a point where there simply wont be enough agricultural land to support the population. For example, already vast areas of America are becoming rapidly desertified and the main agricultural area of northern Australia is suffering a six year drought.

Unfortunately, wargammer your idea that the earth is in a natural warming cycle is unfounded. Most scientists (ie: ones not paid by fossil fuels companies) agree that based on the evidence from Ice cores, ancient peat cores and other sources that prior to about 200 years ago(up to the industrial revolution. Coincidence?) the earth was actually on a cooloing curve. Since that period the earth has been warming, this in itself is not a problem (sea levels may rise and drown a few cities but oh well!), it is the speed at which the temperature has risen.
Climate change is happening we need to do something about it.”[/quote]

i find it funny that there is a global warming scare now compared to the global cooling scare just 30-50 years ago. Did you know that the global warming theory began sometime in the mid 20th century when scientists were disturbed that the earth was entering a cooling trend which they thought could lead to an ice age, and one man, (can;t remember his name) said that if they pumped out a shit load of fossil fuels into the enviroment it could potentialy increase the earth’s temperature. Possibly. And the ice caps were a lot smaller a few hundred years ago and the polar bears tuffed it out then.
I also noticed that you chose to respond to wargamer’s comments not dtaylor’s who (no offense meant wargamer) made several more good points

I’m ready to eat an apple.

This solution would turn the oceans even more acidic.

The argument is simply that a rise in CO2 levels does not automatically mean a rise in global temperatures. We have observed that in real life in the 20th century. That indicates that other inputs into our climate are larger than CO2. It doesn’t necessarily prove that CO2 should cause no concern, but the argument that other factors are larger and CO2 rise does not necessarily mean higher temperatures is not flawed, it’s observed.

Almost exactly right, however greenhouse gasses, which includes CO2 as one factor, is the primary cause of global warming (see here).

Yes, but to what degree is human released CO2 responsible?

BTW, your link points to a temperature chart derived from the global ground data set, which does not agree with the global MSU series (for the time we’ve had satellite MSU monitoring), does not agree with the global balloon series, and does not agree with the U.S. ground series, all of which show less warming.

Now, I agree that some greenhouse gasses are more powerful greenhouse gasses than CO2 by mass, however CO2 is far more common, thus has a greater overall effect than any other source (see here).

The most common greenhouse gas with the largest influence over warming is water vapor. In fact, CO2 by itself would be of little concern to us in terms of climate change. The only reason anyone is concerned about climate change induced by human releases of CO2 is that it is believed positive feedback mechanisms amplify the warming one would expect from CO2 alone. Essentially CO2 absorbs IR not absorbed by water vapor, warms the atmosphere, and the warmer atmosphere can hold more water, which introduces a gain in the effect of CO2. Without the presumed gain introduced by water vapor, CO2 has little impact.

(Read the first four paragraphs of: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/)

Problem is we have no way at this time to accurately model water evaporation, cloud formation, precipitation, and the impact on climate all of this has, which is why there’s such disagreement.

dtaylor said: “Likewise, more CO2 does not mean more greenhouse effect in anything like a 1-to-1 fashion. As the absorption window of CO2, which overlaps water vapor, becomes saturated, the impact decreases dramatically. Ignoring secondary factors for a moment, and assuming that the 0.6C rise of the 20th century was entirely due to man (the U.N. itself disputes this and only attributes a fraction of that rise to man), to raise temperatures by another 0.6C would require releasing 10x the CO2 in the 21st century.”

I’m sorry, but the above does not fit with any science I’ve seen.

As you add CO2 to the atmosphere, you crowd an absorption window which is already considered to be close to opaque.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/3

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

That was my point. The more CO2 you add, the less impact it has because the IR it could absorb has already been absorbed.

The numbers are a simplistic look at things, and I noted them as such. You can’t ignore how the additional CO2 might interact with the other greenhouse gases, and I’m not suggesting we should. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my language. I was simply trying to illustrate the key point that as you add CO2 to the atmosphere, the direct impact decreases rapidly because the IR window becomes saturated.

Unlike how you imply above, the UN via. the IPCC say that the majority of climate change is attributable to man, thus it’s actually a large fraction.

If I recall correctly, they attribute roughly half the warming to human activities. The IPCC also qualifies their estimate by saying that man’s role is uncertain. So uncertain that man’s activities could actually have a net cooling effect. All the if’s, but’s, maybe’s, guesses, and assumptions are not printed in the newspaper or discussed on the nightly news.

If CO2 levels continue to rise following the “A2″ scenario where CO2 levels rise from about 400 ppm now to about 800 ppm by 2100, then climate models predict that temperatures will rise by between ~2C to ~4.5C (see here).

There are many scenarios, including some which suggest very minor warming (1C), which tells you one important thing: we do not fully understand climate and cannot model or predict it with certainty.

There’s no set of “scenarios” for the outcome of e = mc2. If you have scenarios, you have a system not fully understood, and competing models and theories none of which have been proven.

So, you can’t “ignore secondary factors” unless you want an inaccurate picture.

I can to make the point that as you add CO2 to the atmosphere, its impact will drop. Common sense suggests that total impact including feedback mechanisms will also weaken as the initial input is weaker.

Even if your last claim was correct (which it isn’t) CO2 emission levels went up by about 10x from 1900 to 2000 (see here) so such events are not impossible.

We went from horses to cars and candles to light bulbs. I don’t think we’re going to do anything so dramatic related to energy again.

Straw man argument. I wasn’t claiming any such thing.

You might as well, because you are relying on “consensus” arguments.

When I point out that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is real, that is because the scientific evidence is strong enough to convince almost all of them. There are only a handful that disagree because the scientific evidence is so strongly in favor of it, and if anyone would be aware of that evidence and understand it it’s climate scientists.

You need to read: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

No climate model is perfect, yes, however several are close and those are all in general agreement about what factors are causing global warming and what will happen if we do nothing (see here).

They are all in general agreement about what factors cause global warming and what “will happen if we do nothing” because they are all DESIGNED to be that way.

You can’t see the circular and flawed logic in a group of scientists who all believe the same thing creating some computer simulations and then claiming that the simulations are accurate because they all portray roughly the same thing, even though what they portray is not supported by historical observation?

There are holes, yes, but they are minor, not “gaping.”

Not being able to accurately model precipitation, one of the most important factors in global temperatures, is a HUGE hole. Massive. Could drive a semi through it.

While we may not be able to make predictions with 100% accuracy, the accuracy is actually quite good (see above link).

The “scenarios” of the UN have a variance of something like 6-7C. That’s not accurate. Not by a long shot.

Furthermore, a ~0.6C rise is a warning sign of much greater future change,

Fallacy of slippery slope.

Ah yes, Crichton’s speeches and books are an excellent example of unscientific FUD I was discussing (see the errors in his claims discussed here, here, and here).

Let’s see: first link has nothing to do with his lecture which I linked, and is riddled with inaccuracies to boot.

Second link is OK in some of its criticisms of his BOOK, which I did not link to.

Third link actually addresses the lecture, but the criticisms are minor and up for debate.

Why would you rather believe a fiction author instead of the vast majority of climate scientists from all around the world?

Why would I believe any theory which rests on a fallacy, appeal to common belief? Did you even read his lecture? His lecture is my answer to the statement you just made. Read it.

The part you quoted ignores the reasons for the consensus,

Appeal to common belief is a fallacy. If I argue X is false, you can’t argue the evidence for X is good because lots of people believe it.

Beyond that, I am tired of hearing how many scientists believe global warming. The papers I see are all over the map when it comes to “belief” in global warming, how much is due to man, how much can be expected, and what the impact on the environment will be. In fact, off the top of my head I can think of more names of “critics” than “supporters”, if supporters are those that subscribe to UN projections. Heck, I can’t even say that because UN scenarios are all over the place. A scientist may agree with the low end, but laugh at the high end.

Point me to one well performed and supported survey of scientists that supports the contention that the “vast majority” believe in global warming, and define what “belief in global warming” means, since even I believe adding CO2 to the atmosphere has a warming influence, I simply think it’s lost background noise against nature.

If you’re going to attempt the fallacy of appeal to common belief, at least establish common belief first.

I’ve cited the science when I made a scientific claim,

Mischaracterization. You’ve linked to sites that propose and attempt to support a particular theory of things. “Science” has made no determination about this, that is no single theory or model has yet been proven and established by the scientific method.

but so far you’ve only quoted a speech by a fiction author who has a rather spotty understanding of climate science. If we’re going to continue this, I’d like to see citations that support your scientific claims so myself and others can see what the basis for them are.

Here’s a semi-random collection of links to people, sites, books, and articles which are not in lockstep alignment with the “official” UN position on climate change. The degree of difference varies. Some of the sites contain tons of links, and there is variation in opinion among those links. Heck, outside the cozy IPCC group, it’s all variation.

I’ll post more if you like, but you should be able to jump to links, branch out, search for other books by authors, and google search.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Gases-Patrick-J-Michaels/dp/1882577922

http://www.lomborg.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fear-Shouldnt-Global-Warming/dp/1882577655

http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Talk-Cold-Science-Unfinished/dp/094599981X

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.john-daly.com/

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/not_that_simple_opedcolumnists_roy_w__spencer.htm?page=0

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Correct, but that is because, as I said before, CO2 levels are just part of the equation. However, CO2 levels are an essential part of explaining/predicting climate change. All factors would be rejected by the method you have described if you looked at them individually, which shows the flaw in that argument. This is why climatologists look at all factors together.

dtaylor said: “At the very least this disproves the notion that any increase in greenhouse gases automatically means an increase in global temperature. Global temperature is the result of many factors, some of which eclipse the total greenhouse effect of CO2 by several orders of magnitude.”

Almost exactly right, however greenhouse gasses, which includes CO2 as one factor, is the primary cause of global warming (see here). Now, I agree that some greenhouse gasses are more powerful greenhouse gasses than CO2 by mass, however CO2 is far more common, thus has a greater overall effect than any other source (see here). Because CO2 is such a major factor, both in the amount it has changed and the effect it has, many discussions revolve around CO2 levels, but it is still just one factor among several.

dtaylor said: “Likewise, more CO2 does not mean more greenhouse effect in anything like a 1-to-1 fashion. As the absorption window of CO2, which overlaps water vapor, becomes saturated, the impact decreases dramatically. Ignoring secondary factors for a moment, and assuming that the 0.6C rise of the 20th century was entirely due to man (the U.N. itself disputes this and only attributes a fraction of that rise to man), to raise temperatures by another 0.6C would require releasing 10x the CO2 in the 21st century.”

I’m sorry, but the above does not fit with any science I’ve seen. Unlike how you imply above, the UN via. the IPCC say that the majority of climate change is attributable to man, thus it’s actually a large fraction. If CO2 levels continue to rise following the “A2″ scenario where CO2 levels rise from about 400 ppm now to about 800 ppm by 2100, then climate models predict that temperatures will rise by between ~2C to ~4.5C (see here). This means that a CO2 increase of ~x2 by 2100 would actually mean a temperature rise of between x3.3 and x7.5 more than the previous ~0.6C rise! This is because many factors interact, like increasing greenhouse gasses increases temperature, which increases the amount of moisture the atmosphere holds, which itself increases temperature. So, you can’t “ignore secondary factors” unless you want an inaccurate picture. Even if your last claim was correct (which it isn’t) CO2 emission levels went up by about 10x from 1900 to 2000 (see here) so such events are not impossible.

dtaylor said: “Science is NOT a democracy. Scientific theories are NOT established by vote.”

Straw man argument. I wasn’t claiming any such thing. When I point out that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is real, that is because the scientific evidence is strong enough to convince almost all of them. There are only a handful that disagree because the scientific evidence is so strongly in favor of it, and if anyone would be aware of that evidence and understand it it’s climate scientists.

dtaylor said: “No global climate model can accurately predict the climate today given historical data.”

No climate model is perfect, yes, however several are close and those are all in general agreement about what factors are causing global warming and what will happen if we do nothing (see here).

dtaylor said: “I’m sorry, but I cannot look at the gaping holes which remain in climate science, the history of Earth’s climate with its many ups and downs, and the 0.6C rise of the 20th century, and get any where near excited.”

There are holes, yes, but they are minor, not “gaping.” While we may not be able to make predictions with 100% accuracy, the accuracy is actually quite good (see above link). Furthermore, a ~0.6C rise is a warning sign of much greater future change, and those changes are not likely to be positive for the most part (see here and here). The upcoming IPCC Fourth Assessment Report “Working Group II (WGII) Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” early next month (4/6/’07) will show the latest science on the current and future problems caused by global warming.

dtaylor said: “Read and consider Michael Crichton’s speech”

Ah yes, Crichton’s speeches and books are an excellent example of unscientific FUD I was discussing (see the errors in his claims discussed here, here, and here). Why would you rather believe a fiction author instead of the vast majority of climate scientists from all around the world? The part you quoted ignores the reasons for the consensus, and falsely acts like the consensus itself is the reason. However, that’s like saying the sky may not be blue even though most people who’ve seen it say it’s blue, and people only say it’s blue because most people say it’s blue. That could be true, I suppose, but it’s incredibly unlikely. In the same way the scientists have observed the evidence, and because of that evidence almost all have come to roughly the same conclusions. Hanging your hopes on the improbable idea that non-scientists are more correct than the scientists in this area is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand.

I’ve cited the science when I made a scientific claim, but so far you’ve only quoted a speech by a fiction author who has a rather spotty understanding of climate science. If we’re going to continue this, I’d like to see citations that support your scientific claims so myself and others can see what the basis for them are.