Is Global Warming really all that disputed anymore?

[torpid]

Originally posted by: MetalMat
Even if there is no global warming, I still dont find it good to pollute the air by burning fossil fuels. That causes acid rain and smog looks outright ugly. However, knowing the way human civilization works, we wont do anything drastic until something bad happens.

I think you are thinking of american society, not human civilization. Well, and lots of other nations', but not ALL of them.

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: Eli

I'd still like to know how much CO2 we have put out in the last 50 years, compared to a single moderate volcanic eruption.

By rights it should be worse. Each year humanity dumps roughly 8 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere, 6.5 billion tons from fossil fuels and 1.5 billion from deforestation. But less than half that total, 3.2 billion tons, remains in the atmosphere to warm the planet. Where is the missing carbon? "It's a really major mystery, if you think about it," says Wofsy, an atmospheric scientist at Harvard University. His research site in the Harvard Forest is apparently not the only place where nature is breathing deep and helping save us from ourselves. Forests, grasslands, and the waters of the oceans must be acting as carbon sinks. They steal back roughly half of the carbon dioxide we emit, slowing its buildup in the atmosphere and delaying the effects on climate.

national geographic

Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.
Text

 

[yukichigai]

I dunno about global warming, or at least the cause. I have my suspicions though; I know that smog and pollution can cause a micro-greenhouse effect in localized areas -- like L.A. -- so is it too hard to imagine that it could start having an effect on the entire world? But yeah, I'll wait 10 years for the scientists to get their ducks in a row.

Now what I find amusing are the people that try to tell me that Fluoro-Chloro(sp?) carbons don't really damage the Ozone Layer, and that it's all a myth. Mm hmm, because basic chemistry is lying to us all. Riiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhhhttttttttt.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Vaerilis
*[include]=lawn chair*
*[include]=weiners*
I really don't know anything about C++

Ahh, is that the language, nope it really does not look like c++. C++ looks more like
#include <lawn_chair.h>
#include "weiners"

youll notice that lawn chairs are global while weiners and local.

 

[dullard]

Well if Yellowfiero is going to post links using my method #1 above, I must post links to method #2. I just want to keep things balanced here. NASA.gov

"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity."

 

[MetalMat]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: MetalMat
Even if there is no global warming, I still dont find it good to pollute the air by burning fossil fuels. That causes acid rain and smog looks outright ugly. However, knowing the way human civilization works, we wont do anything drastic until something bad happens.

I think you are thinking of american society, not human civilization. Well, and lots of other nations', but not ALL of them.

Well, even so I don't think anything will happen until there is money involved. That is also why I don't think any type of real hybrid cars will become popular yet because of the face that gasoline is still fairly cheap, but when it gets real expensive then companies will start because there will be more money to make. Money and Greed is what runs most of mankind.

 

[moshquerade]

visit effing upstate NY - there is no global warming here.

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: MetalMat
Even if there is no global warming, I still dont find it good to pollute the air by burning fossil fuels. That causes acid rain and smog looks outright ugly. However, knowing the way human civilization works, we wont do anything drastic until something bad happens.

I think you are thinking of american society, not human civilization. Well, and lots of other nations', but not ALL of them.

Wow. You almost made me feel guilty to be an American. Almost. Then I remembered that we are one of if not THE most advanced civilization this planet has ever seen. And then I remembered that it has been proven time and again that the USA doesn't pollute the world nearly as much as most third world nations. So now I don't feel so bad.

 

[Ogg]

CO2 isnt really the aerosol to worry about when dealing with volcanic errruptions.....its the sulfur aersols, sulfur dioxide.
And I can point you to lots of scientists that will tell you that volcanic erruptions dont increase global temp, they infact lower the temp because all the particulates in the air actually bounce the light back out to space
Albedo baby!!

 

[Ilmater]

First off, Eli my friend, you KNOW that this belongs in P&amp;N. No, it's not news and it's not politics, but it requires thought and will cause debate, and clearly that makes this the wrong forum for this.

That being said, the earth is clearly getting warmer, but I have NEVER seen evidence proving what is causing global warming, just a lot of theories. Granted, I may not be the most educated person on the planet, but I was on a debate team in college, and we all kind of had to know what evidence was out there. I won't bother to spout off all of the different theories on either side of the argument, suffice it to say, NOBODY can prove that we're causing it.

[End of Argument]

 

[azazyel]

the Earth is fine.....it's the people that are fvcked

 

[JDub02]

the first Earth Day was created to combat global cooling. most of the environmentalists just use whatever statistics they find to fit their agenda. the earth is fine. there is no "global warming". it's just a natural cycle of the earth.

come to upstate NY next January if you have any doubts. it's freezing up here .. we get buried under snow.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

Global warming is happening, as well as the extinction of many species and ozone depletion. But by the time it matters I'll be dead. Earth will recover anyhow, it's just a matter of time. The only one of those three things that takes a long time to recover (millions of years) is the loss of species (and when diversity returns it won't be the same species).

EDIT: Without the Greenhouse Effect, Earth would be extremely cold. It's natural. However, our introduction of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere enhances the Greenhouse Effect.

 

[Amused]

Do I believe the climate is changing? Of course. The history of this planet is filled with constant changes in climate... some rather dramtic and rapid.

Do I believe humans are causing it? I have seen no valid evidence to prove this.

Human civilization is only a few thousand years old. Reliable weather records are only a couple hundred years old, max (more like 100 or so).

Anyone who makes positive claims humans are the cause of the weather shift does so with no valid proof.

It's as silly as the "ozone hole." Humans have NEVER witnessed an intact ozone layer over the South Pole. To claim it is caused by humans is to make a giant leap of faith.

 

[royaldank]

Penn and Teller did an episode on this. I'm not saying they are 100% correct, but from what I gathered, global warming is BS. Also, the idea that we are loosing 1,000 of animals a day to extinction is a load of BS. Lastly, the rapid deletion of forrests that hippies always cry about it fairly non-existant as well.

 

[Atomicus]

Is the "normal temperature cycle" some kind of petty defense for industries to keep polluting? So if this global warming is a natural cycle, how about cutting emissions anyways for health reasons?

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
It's also been noted that the sun is now burning hotter than it was 50 years ago.

:Q

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: dullard
Yes it is quite disputed. Virtually all scientists feel we need a minimum of 10 more years of data to fully understand anything. Until that happens (and even afterwards) it will be disputed.

For the best discussions just think of the two methods of measuring temperature.

Method 1) Measure the temperature only at the surface of the earth. In fact only measure at airports. Ignore any other location. Forget that as cities grow the city produces heat and affects the weather. As the city heats up, the airports (usually within the city) show hotter temperatures. Thus the world must be heating up.

Method 2) Measure the whole surface of the earth from a satellite. Average the temperatures. Guess what? No significant change.

Since method 1 gives dramatically different results from method 2, there is a major dispute going on.

Actually, I don't believe any of the scientists are stupid enough to be willing to rely on "Method 1", anyone deserving the title "scientist" knows better. If I'm not mistaken, there *IS* a significant change in world temperatures. But, more importantly than air temperatures, a "Method 3" if you will, is the temperatures of the water in the oceans (since the ocean covers more of the earth than land, and the ocean is a bigger heat sink than land).

Nonetheless, as someone already pointed out, the main disagreement is whether humans are responsible or not, or to what degree we're responsible. Nonetheless, since 90% of the scientists seem to think the earth is heating up, and heating up is bad for us, doesn't it make sense to curtail our activities that contribute, regardless of knowing yet the degree to which they contribute? (rather than waiting to find out "oh yeah. Hey guys, this 10 year study shows that what we considered stopping 10 years ago really DOES contribute to global warming a whole lot. Shucks. We should have stopped it 10 years ago, but hind sight is 20/20."

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Eli
It seems to be a fact that the average winter temperature in Alaska has risen almost 7 degrees. It is causing noticable changes in the permafrost and arctic ice distribution...

And supposedly (I haven't seen the data) other areas are cooling. Leading to a relatively unchanging temperature.

My personal opinion is that we have very slightly impacted the weather. For example we know for a fact that a city is hotter than a rural area. And we know for a fact that cities tend to create storms (look downwind from a city on radar). Yes we can locally impact it. But cities are such a minor fraction of the total earth surface that when averaged out it is so far unmeasurable. So I feel we do impact it, but so slowly that we need many more years of data to fully understand the full impact.

I also disagree with the premise that CO2 is the cause. This analogy isn't 100% perfect, but you'll get my drift. Suppose I have a greenhouse. The temperature is steady for many, many eons. Then one day I start a fire in the greenhouse and the temperature goes up. Did the temperature go up since the fire created more CO2 which assisted the greenhouse effect? Or did the temperature go up since there is a damn fire creating heat? I personally feel that it is the latter. The sheer amount of oil/coal/wood/nuclear power we are releasing is the bigger contributer to the local temperature effects we are making in my opinion.

Ahh, yeah, I see. Average is the key word.

Yeah, I have no doubt that warming in some parts of the world will cause a cooling in other parts. It's all about balance, as far as nature and the Earth is concerned.

I also agree with your second assessment. We do use and release a LOT of energy. That has to account for something - it doesen't just disappear.

I'd still like to know how much CO2 we have put out in the last 50 years, compared to a single moderate volcanic eruption.

You're right, it just doesn't disappear, but energy *IS* radiated away from the earth into the rest of the solar system. Hence cooler at night, warmer during the day.

 

[FleshLight]

I believe we're on the last leg of the glaciation cycle and an ice age is due for us within the next 10,000 years.

 

[DWW]

Originally posted by: Vaerilis
*[include]=lawn chair*
*[include]=weiners*
I really don't know anything about C++

Good thing because that was absolutely nothing like C++

 

[ElFenix]

some scientists are thinking that global warming/cooling is caused by increases/decreases in the incidence of solar energy getting to the earth. so, if the sun burns more/less fuel, or if the earth passes through an empty/dusty region of space the atomospheric temperature will increase/decrease accordingly. and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

edit: and the romans were able to grow grapes much further north in england than is currently possible to do. it was warmer 2000 years ago than it is today.

 

[db]

We don't have a large enough sample, time-wise, to tell whether or not this is a cycle, a change, a glitch, a normal variation, or whatever. We are "too close" time-wise to really tell if this is a permanent change or not. Need solid temp data from WAY back in time until the present....

Just b/c it *could* happen, and you come up with a plausible cause, does not mean that it *is* happening.

 

[C'DaleRider]

Originally posted by: db
We don't have a large enough sample, time-wise, to tell whether or not this is a cycle, a change, a glitch, a normal variation, or whatever. We are "too close" time-wise to really tell if this is a permanent change or not. Need solid temp data from WAY back in time until the present....

Just b/c it *could* happen, and you come up with a plausible cause, does not mean that it *is* happening.

Actually, if you contrast the info presented in these references, you'd see a correlation between temp and CO2 concentrations over a LOOOOONG time, around 150K years. Core sampling in the Antarctic..........

1. Barnola, J. M., et al, Nature, #329, pp. 408-414 (Ice core data from Antarctica)

2. Current data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, TN.

Unfortunately, since I've only got this data in two graphs and cannot scan them for you, you'd have to find them in their pubs to see them. But over the last 150K years, the graphs show there have been two upward spikes in temp/CO2....both quite correlated with each other. The first was at around 140K years ago, then a trend downward until around a few hundred years ago when it starts climbing upward, faster and faster. Beginning in around 1800, the upward rise takes off almost vertically in both graphs......around the start of the industrial revolution.

Add to that the downward slope of sea ice coverage in the Northern Hemisphere that's been seen over the last roughly 30 years and you'd think someone would notice there is something going on. Since 1978, there has been a downward slope in average sea ice coverage in the Northern Hemisphere of around 34,300 square kilometers (13,200 miles) per year.

This comes from Claire Parkinson, Donald J. Cavalieri, Per Gloersen, H. Jay Zwally, and Josefino C. Comiso, NASA/GSFC in an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1999. Data was obtained from the Scanning Mulitchannel Microwave Radiometer on board NASA's Nimbus 7 satellite and from the Special Sensor Microwave Imagers on satellites of the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Eli
Watching these Forecast Earth segments on the Weather Channel website, about Alaska.

It seems to be a fact that Alaska's climate is changing. I guess the question is, is it really global warming? What if it is just arctic warming? Is there a difference?

Is it caused by humans? Clearly, the Earth has been getting warmer for the last 20,000 years or so - ever since we came out of the last ice age. Are we simply causing the inevitable to happen more quickly? Or are our carbon dioxide emissions negligable on a worldly scale?

How do we know that it isn't simply a 100(or even 1000...) year anomaly?

My Dad says he notices the climate differences here in Oregon from when he was a kid, but is 50 years really a big enough picture of time to see the whole picture?

Parts of antartica have been cooling over the past couple decades IIRC.

I will say this Texas had its coolest summer on record this year. Of course one year doesnt really mean much.