Global warming

[Song]

I don't believe in global warming, that is all I can do.

I don't know if it is true or not, there are so many pro and contra

arguments, so many lies, halftruths and truths, that in the end,

you can only believe what you think is right.

 

And well, for me global climate change (as it is called nowdays

because global warming isn't really happening) is a convenient

mean to control people and transfer wealth from the already

poor to the already rich.

Kinda like the sale of indulgences (don't really know what it is

called in english) which the catholic church did some while ago.

And if you didn't do to it, you will burn in hell for all eternity, today

your children will burn on earth, kinda the same in the end.

The same applied to the global cooling before the global warming,

so it is not really a new thing.

[danielsangeo]

"Global cooling" has never been advocated in scientific circles. "Global cooling" is something the media misrepresented.

 

Just sayin'...

 

Regardless of the political mess that is coming from this, global warming remains a demonstrable fact and we'll have to address this problem. And I feel we are. It's just going to take time and these crackpots out there that do not provide any evidence but make false claims about global warming ("It's the sun!") aren't helping matters...

[Koockaburra101]

I don't get why people are so invested in denying it. Even if ignore global warming shouldn't we still do our best to stop burning fossil fuels and putting stuff in the atmosphere?

[danielsangeo]

My thoughts? They are "so invested in denying it" because they believe the rhetoric that "doing something about it" would mean loss of jobs, revenue, and would (somehow) destroy the country, that it's "just fearmongering", or that it's somehow completely political (read: "left wing") so it doesn't exist.

[WonSul]

We're in an interglacial period so of course there's global warming. In a couple thousand or more years it'll be a period of glaciation, Then people can complain about global cooling "Oh noes!!"

 

Really, climate change is natural, as is global warming and cooling cycles. There have been about 8 glaciations in the last 800,000 years alone.

If you're looking for just hard evidence than look at the correlation between CO2 levels and glaciation cycles over the last I don't know, 600,000 years. Whatever tickles your fancy. The evidence is pretty self explanatory. CO2 levels rise, Interglaciation peaks. CO2 levels drop, glaciation begins, then peaks. CO2 levels rise. Rinse repeat.

 

I'm not sure how human activities are going to affect this cycle. But I do know that it can't stop it. We're going to continue to heat up even if every human source of CO2 was eliminated. Then after the peak, we'll decline to the next glaciation.

[ProHypster]

We're in an interglacial period so of course there's global warming. In a couple thousand or more years it'll be a period of glaciation, Then people can complain about global cooling "Oh noes!!"

 

Really, climate change is natural, as is global warming and cooling cycles. There have been about 8 glaciations in the last 800,000 years alone.

If you're looking for just hard evidence than look at the correlation between CO2 levels and glaciation cycles over the last I don't know, 600,000 years. Whatever tickles your fancy. The evidence is pretty self explanatory. CO2 levels rise, Interglaciation peaks. CO2 levels drop, glaciation begins, then peaks. CO2 levels rise. Rinse repeat.

 

I'm not sure how human activities are going to affect this cycle. But I do know that it can't stop it. We're going to continue to heat up even if every human source of CO2 was eliminated. Then after the peak, we'll decline to the next glaciation.

Pretty much my opinion.

[danielsangeo]

I think that climatologists take natural climate change into consideration when making their findings and their findings show that anthropogenic climate change (which is in addition to natural climate change) is happening. The mere existence of "natural climate change" (including "sunspots") does not mean that anthropegenic climate change is NOT happening.

[ProHypster]

That's true but when the problem arrises and we do understand it was our fault, we can reasonably say that at the time there was no proof of that and thus, justify our actions today unless there is some secrets which reveal the truth already.

[Rover]

The thing is, natural climate change is always caused by a number of factors. It does not just appear like magic.

Variations in earth's orbit, precession and solar output are called trigger effects. These effects each on their own are not enough to produce significant changes in climate. However, they are enough to get the ball rolling. After such triggers, positive feedback effects come into play, such as the release of greenhouse gases such as CO2. This is why in past natural climate change CO2 seems to lag behind temperature, this is because it is a positive feedback effect, not a trigger in natural climate change. One of the properties of CO2 is that it absorbs heat, CO2 will always do this whether it is released naturally or through human activities. The chemical properties of CO2 will not change based on how it is released into the atmosphere.

Today we observe a warming trend so there should be something causing it. Now scientists are not the idiots that some armchair "experts" from google university seem to think.

Astronomers know earth's orbital quirks very well, they also know about earth's precession. So we can actively predict these trigger effects. And we have established that these effects are not in play, they won't be for thousands of years.

What about solar output? Scientists have been measuring something called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) for decades, has there been an increase in TSI which correlates with the warming trend we are detecting? It is still a subject of ongoing study but much work has been done. It seems at best the sun can account for about 14% of the observed warming.

Like I said earlier, CO2 will always absorb heat and we've been pumping extra CO2 into the atmosphere on top of the natural CO2 cycle. To say this has no effect whatsoever is to deny basic physics.

CO2 is also an important regulator in the control of water vapor, which also acts as a greenhouse gas. CO2 and water vapor form what is called a positive feedback loop. An increase in CO2 increases evaporation, which leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases temperature. Of course this also leads to increased precipitation.

So it's not JUST CO2, the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere causes feedback effects which increase the effects.

 

Is climate very complex with all these intertwined factors and effects? Yes. Do we know everything? No, more study is always needed. Is there a chance climatologists are wrong? Yes, in science nothing is ever 100% sure. Does not being 100% sure mean we know absolutely nothing? Of course not, we can't just dismiss the things we do know.

What's important here is that we let the scientists do what they're good at, science.

Do a couple of non-scientists, who never read a peer reviewed science paper in their entire lives, sitting in a bar drinking beer complaining about how it's just another scheme by the "gub'mint" to control and tax people even more add anything useful to the debate? Do I even have to answer that?

[danielsangeo]

Thank you, Rover. I hate that word "proof" when talking about science. Science is not about proof; it's about evidence. And we have evidence that we are causing climate change that's in addition to what normally happens on this planet.

[Song]

And there is also evidence against it.

But that doesn't matter to us.

 

Noone of us will ever change their mind. We all think only we know

the truth and everyone else who are not on the same 'side' as we

are either idiots or simply wrong and have to be convinced of our

truth.

I hate those discussion, they are always the same:

'I see it like this.'

'But you are wrong, it is like this.'

'No it is like this, idiot.'

'No it is like this, double idiot.'

'No it is like this, triple idiot.'

And it always goes on and on and on until a moderator closes the

thread because we long forgot to add arguments to our comments and

instead gone on throwing around indirect insults as a defensive attack

because we feel threatened by someone who just seems too different

from us...

 

In the end, the truth is probably somewhere in between, but accepting

that both 'sides' could be equally right as they could be wrong, that is

sadly near impossible...

[danielsangeo]

And there is also evidence against it.

 

[citation needed]

[Bjossi]

As far as my knowledge goes global warming does exist and is not the direct source of the controversy, man-made global warming is. The earth is an active planet that goes through changes over very long periods of time. What I wonder is how much of the global warming is man-made. I imagine we are greatly exaggerating our impact, the atmosphere of this planet is fucking HUGE.

[Rover]

As far as my knowledge goes global warming does exist and is not the direct source of the controversy, man-made global warming is. The earth is an active planet that goes through changes over very long periods of time. What I wonder is how much of the global warming is man-made. I imagine we are greatly exaggerating our impact, the atmosphere of this planet is fucking HUGE.

 

Maybe you should write a scientific paper on that and submit it to nature or science?

[Bjossi]

No, I am not a scientist.

[Rover]

No, I am not a scientist.

 

Good.

Now I can apologize for being an ass about it

[ProHypster]

The thing is, natural climate change is always caused by a number of factors. It does not just appear like magic.

Variations in earth's orbit, precession and solar output are called trigger effects. These effects each on their own are not enough to produce significant changes in climate. However, they are enough to get the ball rolling. After such triggers, positive feedback effects come into play, such as the release of greenhouse gases such as CO2. This is why in past natural climate change CO2 seems to lag behind temperature, this is because it is a positive feedback effect, not a trigger in natural climate change. One of the properties of CO2 is that it absorbs heat, CO2 will always do this whether it is released naturally or through human activities. The chemical properties of CO2 will not change based on how it is released into the atmosphere.

Today we observe a warming trend so there should be something causing it. Now scientists are not the idiots that some armchair "experts" from google university seem to think.

Astronomers know earth's orbital quirks very well, they also know about earth's precession. So we can actively predict these trigger effects. And we have established that these effects are not in play, they won't be for thousands of years.

What about solar output? Scientists have been measuring something called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) for decades, has there been an increase in TSI which correlates with the warming trend we are detecting? It is still a subject of ongoing study but much work has been done. It seems at best the sun can account for about 14% of the observed warming.

Like I said earlier, CO2 will always absorb heat and we've been pumping extra CO2 into the atmosphere on top of the natural CO2 cycle. To say this has no effect whatsoever is to deny basic physics.

CO2 is also an important regulator in the control of water vapor, which also acts as a greenhouse gas. CO2 and water vapor form what is called a positive feedback loop. An increase in CO2 increases evaporation, which leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases temperature. Of course this also leads to increased precipitation.

So it's not JUST CO2, the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere causes feedback effects which increase the effects.

 

Is climate very complex with all these intertwined factors and effects? Yes. Do we know everything? No, more study is always needed. Is there a chance climatologists are wrong? Yes, in science nothing is ever 100% sure. Does not being 100% sure mean we know absolutely nothing? Of course not, we can't just dismiss the things we do know.

What's important here is that we let the scientists do what they're good at, science.

Do a couple of non-scientists, who never read a peer reviewed science paper in their entire lives, sitting in a bar drinking beer complaining about how it's just another scheme by the "gub'mint" to control and tax people even more add anything useful to the debate? Do I even have to answer that?

 

I don't understand, all I say is if by the time we find out what we actually did we will have already done it and there is no reverse then we can't honestly say it was our fault, we didn't know. It happened, but people who warned otherwise and "knew" will have no right to say that they were in any better position since both sides don't have sufficient evidence to support their claims at the current moment.

 

It's the same with god. If we do find out in the end there is a god, it doesn't mean believers can justify themselves and say it was our fault, there was no clear evidence for god or against god so there are only beliefs.

 

Besides, we are trying to change to an alternative source just in case we are contributing to something unnatural, (if you think humans aren't part of nature by the way) so I don't see any problems, we can't just stop immediately and turn backwards, people will die due to overpopulation. So we are switching slowly to a more sufficient and safe energy form anyway.

 

I can imagine if we do get ourselves in a mess we will probably/most likely be able to set up sucking factories which literally will clean the environment by reversing our effect with whatever CO2 they get. I mean, I know it's possible.

[Bjossi]

Good.

 

Which part is? I have the potential to be a great scientist like a lot of people if the interest is there, one just needs to be a good and ambitious student. However this is not a field I want to dedicate my life and future to.

[Rover]

Good.

 

Which part is? I have the potential to be a great scientist like a lot of people if the interest is there, one just needs to be a good and ambitious student. However this is not a field I want to dedicate my life and future to.

 

I meant it was good you admitted that.

[danielsangeo]

Think of it like you're in a train. The train is going 50MPH (or about 80 KPH). You're at the back of the train. You move from the back of the train to the front of the train at a speed of 5MPH (about 8KPH).

 

From the vantage point from outside the train, you are traveling at a speed of 55MPH (about 88KPH). But no human can walk at 55MPH/88KPH, right?

 

That's similar to anthropogenic climate change. Yes, climate changes naturally, but there is evidence--conclusive evidence--that we are ADDING to the natural course of events (50+5=55).

 

The atmosphere is "fricking huge", of course, but think of it like poison ivy. Poison ivy contains a substance called urushiol. 50 micrograms (about the size of a grain of table salt) will cause a rash in a great majority of people which could spread and impede on the daily functions of life for a while.

 

A single drop of dimethylmercury, even on a gloved hand, will kill you.

 

Just because something is "huge" doesn't mean that we can't have an effect.