I see a huge difference between the two.
1. We can see and measure on a macro level the effects of increased CFC levels in the upper atmosphere. Prior to the increased CFC usage there wasn't as huge of a hole in the ozone, although there was one.
2. We see increased levels of Co2 in the atmosphere, know that increased levels can cause increased temps. However, there are thousands of other examples of things that can do the same. There are thousands of extraneous variables that can skew the results, but nobody looks at those. Everybody has latched on to one variable, man, and extrapolated that to the nth degree to place a solid correlation *and* causation link, something which, if science and statistics is used, is not possible.
If I were to use statistics I would need a few things.
1. Base co2 level extrapolated from historical data.
2. Man's increase in Co2 levels
3. Base temps of 1 and increased temps of 2.
Then, in order for the causality to be drawn in the multi-variable equation, I would need to show that man's increase in Co2 levels had a high r2 in the causation of temp. However, we have seen numerous examples of non-linked extraneous variables that are far more likely to cause a direct influence.
While I don't have the time or energy to show how this would work and the results, I can surely say that *NOBODY* has done this, from what I have seen. I think that, given the number of brains around this, that either they haven't thought about it (highly unlikely) or they have and found that the R2 is very low (much more likely). However, they didn't accept a low R2 and continued parading their conclusion, falsely.
Essentially, they probably failed to reject the hypothesis, not because of a lack of certainty or their levels weren't high enough, but because they *INTENTIONALLY* and *WILLFULLY* caused an error in statistical thinking.
This is much more likely. Occam's Razor.
Global warming on Mars. Maybe human activity is the cause of that too? I knew we should've never done the Viking Mars mission. 
Lets not forget man controls the sun too.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
seeing as they are barely inductrialized, i don't see a way they can feasably come close to what the usa, europe, russia, and japen were putting out back in the day.
I have another question for you, even though they have not banned them, who do you know that they actually use them and that the amoun they produce is greater than the peak back in whenever it was.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,793
- 6,351
- 126
2(a): Other factors are looked into and are of concern as well. Methane is one of them and is also something that Kyoto addresses. The reason that there is so much focus on CO2 though is that it is the most difficult gas to remove from the atmosphere. Water vapour(another Global Warming factor) is only a concern for a few days, some other factors a few months, 1 factor some 30-40 years(don't recall which), but CO2 remains for centuries(200ish years). That is why CO2 is enemy #1.
The rest has been done, google will show you answers for the rest of your points.
I'm not entirely sure if that right about 200 years, first off, CO2 doesnt break down into anything, it will stay CO2 for billions of years unless something is acting on it. Also, there is still substantial debate as to how much CO2 is disolving into the oceans. I would also point out that increaed CO2 levels make plants grow better, so that is a good thing and more plants would fix the CO2 so it would be a negative feedback loop, but since humans are killing plants off too it might not work like that right now.
The thing is most of the scientific data out there cant say the following:
The earths temperature is rising because of increased levels of CO2 caused by man. Here is the evidence.
They can tell us that we put out CO2, and that the earth is getting warmer, but they fail to connect the two in every study ive read.
Environmentalists are seeing what they want to see. Im NOT arguing against conserving energy and driving cleaner vehicles. Im just saying this needs a LOT more study before we can conclusively say much of anything.
It annoys me to see those commercials on TV trying to guilt people into getting hybrid vehicles.
Global warming as a resault of mans transformation of vegetation and the use of fossile fuel is as close to being proved as it gets. Some people with economic / political interests would have us belive different however.
1) It is a fact that the level of CO2 has increased dramatically during the last 250 years, particulary during the 20th cent.
2) It is a fact that CO2 blocks theremal radiation but is transparant to visible light. Hence it prohibits heat from radiating from the surface of earth and out into space. From a primitive radiation balance calculation it can be shown that the average temp on earth would be -18 C if we had no atmosphere. The transparancy at certain wavelengts (or lack of) of various gases in the atmosphere is responsible for the fact that radiative balance is established at a significantly higher temperature (about 16C). The green house effect IS A FACT. That we would not change the temperature for radiative balance by altering the components of the atmosphere would be against all experiance.
3) It is a fact that the altered levels of CO2 in the atmosphere results from human activity. During a period of a little more than 200 years conentrations of CO2 has increased by >30%. Acording to a previous post those levels havent been seen for 650 000 years.
4) It is a fact that temperatures have changed dramatically during the last 100 years, in a way never seen before.
So. We have altered the components of the atmosphere. We have very strong reasons to belive that this should result in global warming. During the last 100 years we have seen rising temperatures that has nog equality in history or prehistory.
What conclusion should we make from this? The most resoneble one is that global warming results from human activity, particulary the use of fossile fuel. Is it proved? From a strict scientific point of view it isnt. When scientists say we lack a proof it is mainly out of a acaemic point of view. I have met a lot of scientists working with this matter both at my University and in a private company. They all regard this as a fact. its time we admit what is going on and focus on solving the problem instead...
As for the price of failure, global warming means more masstransport. Areas near the equator will be hoter and dryer while land remote from the equator will be wetter and warmer. This means parts of the world will become uninhabitable. Many countries close to the equator are poor and lack the resoureces necessary to deal with extreme wether. In fact, it is proposed by researchers that missing rain periods in parts of africa may result from this. If that is true, the bodycount is about 2 000 000 allready. Of course this is not a fact but it can give you some perspective on the effect of altering our climate. Also keep in mind that this is only the beginning. In some decades the impact of this will surface. we can expect destroyd ecosystems, eliminated species and millions of human causalties in the third world. The fact that the scientific evidence of global warming was some what incomplete will not be very usefull then.
1) It is a fact that the level of CO2 has increased dramatically during the last 250 years, particulary during the 20th cent.
2) It is a fact that CO2 blocks theremal radiation but is transparant to visible light. Hence it prohibits heat from radiating from the surface of earth and out into space. From a primitive radiation balance calculation it can be shown that the average temp on earth would be -18 C if we had no atmosphere. The transparancy at certain wavelengts (or lack of) of various gases in the atmosphere is responsible for the fact that radiative balance is established at a significantly higher temperature (about 16C). The green house effect IS A FACT. That we would not change the temperature for radiative balance by altering the components of the atmosphere would be against all experiance.
3) It is a fact that the altered levels of CO2 in the atmosphere results from human activity. During a period of a little more than 200 years conentrations of CO2 has increased by >30%. Acording to a previous post those levels havent been seen for 650 000 years.
4) It is a fact that temperatures have changed dramatically during the last 100 years, in a way never seen before.
So. We have altered the components of the atmosphere. We have very strong reasons to belive that this should result in global warming. During the last 100 years we have seen rising temperatures that has nog equality in history or prehistory.
What conclusion should we make from this? The most resoneble one is that global warming results from human activity, particulary the use of fossile fuel. Is it proved? From a strict scientific point of view it isnt. When scientists say we lack a proof it is mainly out of a acaemic point of view. I have met a lot of scientists working with this matter both at my University and in a private company. They all regard this as a fact. its time we admit what is going on and focus on solving the problem instead...
As for the price of failure, global warming means more masstransport. Areas near the equator will be hoter and dryer while land remote from the equator will be wetter and warmer. This means parts of the world will become uninhabitable. Many countries close to the equator are poor and lack the resoureces necessary to deal with extreme wether. In fact, it is proposed by researchers that missing rain periods in parts of africa may result from this. If that is true, the bodycount is about 2 000 000 allready. Of course this is not a fact but it can give you some perspective on the effect of altering our climate. Also keep in mind that this is only the beginning. In some decades the impact of this will surface. we can expect destroyd ecosystems, eliminated species and millions of human causalties in the third world. The fact that the scientific evidence of global warming was some what incomplete will not be very usefull then.
As I have stated a million times, *CORRELATION DOES NOT INFER CAUSATION*.
You cannot say that the increase in Co2 levels are *JUST* because of man if you look at the data from the Vostok ice core.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
It clearly shows that we were/are at a peak anyway. Furthermore, man's increased use of carbon-byproduct fuels wasn't as prolific until the last 100 years or so with the vast majority of that in the last 70 years.
Are you telling me that you are going to take a peak that is proven to be variable and somehow say that *WE* caused that peak, which has been happening for a good 10,000+ years and say that 70 years, or .7% of the time, was caused absolutely by man?
Please, that ignores all basic premise of science, where you statistically analyze the data, coming up with a correlation coefficient. From what I have seen, nobody has done this. That could be for two reasons.
1. They have done it and the R2 absolutely sucks and you cannot prove a direct correlation with any high amount of certainty and the info was buried because nobody wants to admit they are full of crap.
2. They won't do it because they know it's a hopeless study, because if somebody did it and released the data, they'd be ridiculed for being Republican shills, they know that the R2 is too low to be conclusive.
As mentioned earlier, we have no fekkin idea how many independant variables go into making this planet hotter. We know that Co2 levels make a huge difference, but as somebody pointed out earlier, something as simple as the Sun outputting more energy, can cause this planet to heat up.
That isn't to say that i like pollution. Frankly, I'd rather outlaw SUV's and mandate a 22mpg minimum in *practical* driving conditions while strongly encouraging stuff like Biodiesel or celluloid Ethanol.
I am not a Repuglican, but I am a practical person who doesn't swallow what people say at face value.
Apparently you disregarded every non-conforming science opinion that is out there......It is a FACT that CO2 is on the rise. It is a FACT that there has been FAR higher CO2 readings in the 1930's than now. It is a FACT that CO2 readings have in the past been even higher than that. It is a FACT that the earth has been hotter and COOLER than is is at the moment.
Some studies suggest that CO2 is not the sole terror suspect in Global Warming..
Critics to Global warming
Leading scientist recants global warming CO2 connection
Discussion on the CO2/ global cooling link
It is NOT a proven fact that humans are responsible for any global warming pattern at all. Suppositions and assumptions are fine, but call them what they are.
I do however, believe that reducing pollution will certainly not hurt the status quo.
I'd rather be safe than sorry. Global climate changed caused by us, aside from simply melting icecaps and thereby damaging coastal regions (which would be devastating, though not the end of the world), could actually tip us into another ice age. The fact is we are currently in a gap between ice ages that could easily end any time once the processes are set in motion. Even very small changes in global temperature (a couple degrees Celsius) can have a massive impact on agriculture and climate.
There are also other reasons to stop polluting, i.e. environmental damage. All in all I am very much looking forward to Hydrogen fuels and the like.
There are also other reasons to stop polluting, i.e. environmental damage. All in all I am very much looking forward to Hydrogen fuels and the like.
Enig101,
I'm with you on not polluting, but for other reasons. I just think that you can't loose by being cleaner to the Earth. After all you shouldn't sh** where you sleep anyways. Even most lower life forms know that!!!
I'm with you on not polluting, but for other reasons. I just think that you can't loose by being cleaner to the Earth. After all you shouldn't sh** where you sleep anyways. Even most lower life forms know that!!!
Completely false. The Sun does get hotter, but on the scale of millions of years. No sane scientists will claim that they can measure the change in Sun's energy output over 15 years.
The energy loss is mostly controleld by water vapor and by a lesser amount by CO2. However, the content of water vapor does not change much. The amount of CO2, on the other hand increases very steeply simply because we release it from fuels where it has been trapped. If you can't see the difference, I feel sorry for you.
Irrelevent. Do you know what the word "global" means? It means that if your town experienced the coldest winter in 50 years it still means zero, squat, nada, nol', etc. for global warming. Small local fluctuations say nothing about the overall trend.
You can't be even if you wanted to. You'll get laughed out of the room.
How is it pointless? If a large increase in temp is seen and is then expected to reverse, then GW is bullcrap?
Well, since you like to cite a random graph from the Petit et al paper, why aren't you citing what is actually written in the paper?
"The extension of the greenhouse-gas record shows that present-day levels of CO2 and CH4 (360 p.p.m.v. and 1,700 p.p.b.v., respectively) are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (280 p.p.m.v. and 650 p.p.b.v., respectively) are found during all interglacials, while values higher than these are found in stages 5.5, 9.3 and 11.3 (this last stage is probably incomplete), with the highest values during stage 9.3 (300 p.p.m.v. and 780 p.p.b.v., respectively)."
For their entire data set, the CO2 levels, and the methane levels are at their highest levels. It isn't just barely higher, rather the current reading of CO2 is 20% higher than the higest value for the past 420,000 years, and the methane level has more than doubled.
Seriously, did you actually take the time to read the Petit et al paper, because right after their discussion of the unprecidented CO2 and methane levels, they said:
"The overall correlation between our CO2 and CH4 records and the Antarctic isotopic temperature5, 9, 16 is remarkable (r2 = 0.71 and 0.73 for CO2 and CH4, respectively). This high correlation indicates that CO2 and CH4 may have contributed to the glacial?interglacial changes over this entire period by amplifying the orbital forcing along with albedo, and possibly other changes15,16. "
So not only are the CO2 and methane levels unprecidented, they have a good correlation between those gases and temperature. This begs the question, why cite their paper in the first place?
I can't believe some of you are still denying human caused global warming. Millions of tons of CO2 are released into the atmosphere daily and have no effect? Think of the effect of lead or murcury, before we found how dangerous a minute amount was.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter