Ok im confused about "facts" regarding global warming

[surftheiop]

So Al Gore has his CO2 and temperature graph and uses it to show that increased CO2 has historically raised temperatures.

Then the Great Global Warming Swindle uses the "same data"(?) to show that increasing temperatures actually raises CO2, not the other way around.

Who is right and how do you know ?

[surftheiop]

Link to the Global Warming Swindle addressing Al Gore's graph

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2baQzelLkY4

[arahant]

Good question. Fortunately, I don't see much need to do anything one way or the other.

Until I hear differently though, I believe the UN climate change report.

[ApeAttack]

Increased CO2 ---> increased temperature due to an increased absorption of infrared energy emitted primarily by the earth.

It is possible that increased temperatures will lead to increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases through secondary means. For example, if it gets hotter, people will use their A/Cs more which get their energy from power plants fueled by coal. Another example: As the permafrost and snow melts in the high latitudes, methane (a greenhouse gas too) and CO2 may be released since they were previously trapped under snow.

However, 'increased CO2 ---> increased temperature' is the main idea you should be concerned about.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Increased CO2 ---> increased temperature due to an increased absorption of infrared energy emitted primarily by the earth.

It is possible that increased temperatures will lead to increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases through secondary means. For example, if it gets hotter, people will use their A/Cs more which get their energy from power plants fueled by coal. Another example: As the permafrost and snow melts in the high latitudes, methane (a greenhouse gas too) and CO2 may be released since they were previously trapped under snow.

However, 'increased CO2 ---> increased temperature' is the main idea you should be concerned about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the increasing temperature on Earth isn't doing much to curb the supply of dumb people.

The OP is well aware of the propaganda regarding both sides and of Al Gore's argument, but he was asking for someone to refute the link he supplied in the second post which claims that CO2 is a product of temperature change and not the other way around.

If you think air conditioning is a primary factor of global warming, please let me know so I can laugh my ass off...at you.

[surftheiop]

Sigh

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Increased CO2 ---> increased temperature due to an increased absorption of infrared energy emitted primarily by the earth.

It is possible that increased temperatures will lead to increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases through secondary means. For example, if it gets hotter, people will use their A/Cs more which get their energy from power plants fueled by coal. Another example: As the permafrost and snow melts in the high latitudes, methane (a greenhouse gas too) and CO2 may be released since they were previously trapped under snow.

However, 'increased CO2 ---> increased temperature' is the main idea you should be concerned about.

[/ QUOTE ]


Knowing nothing about the topic, really, what you are describing is a positive feedback cycle, and I'm not sure why this is so confusing for the OP. I'm not claiming its correct or anything, but its not confusing at all that increased CO2 causes increased temperatures AND increased temperatures cause CO2.

[surftheiop]

please watch link in question

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
please watch link in question

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
please watch link in question

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal attack deleted by Rduke55

Watch it, Woolygimp.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
please watch link in question

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleted by Rduke55

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahaha. Ok man. I wasn't commenting on the video or any of the points addressed therein, its not like I'm putting out uninformed opinions. I just commented on a post someone made, trying to explain positive feedback systems. I even used all sorts of qualifiers like "I'm not claiming the video says this" or "I have no idea if this is actually what is happening in global climate change or not but..."

Also, I'm fairly certain I've dismantled you in every ludicrous thread you've started in your short stint here at SMP. Please feel free to start more though, they are pretty comical and give me some enjoyment in my cold, dead, obv meaningless atheistic existence.

But seriously, I really don't want to watch the video.

[Rearden]

Super Cereal Answer:

"Science" as you know it, meaning the unbiased search for answers to questions through a logical, controlled, and rational means to create theories to be tested/examined, does not completely exist in America with respect to political issues.

I can find "scientists" who claim that abortion increases breast cancer risk (data?..what... theres nothing to support this... huh). "Scientists" who suggest that condom use does not impact the spread of STDs. "Scientists" who argue for teaching "intelligent design" in a format that rivals classical creationism in god content and lack of scientific basis. "Scientists" who will argue against stem cell research based on the lack of evidence that stem cells are useful (of course they arent... we've just begun to look at them).

The point is that in any topic where science has become political you must be extremely extremely cautious with respect to who is telling you these "scientific" facts. No serious scientists debate the germ theory of disease or Newton's theory of gravity (also... take note when someone claims "its only/just a theory"... thats not a strike against it thats merely a claim that shows ignorance about basic vocabulary in science). Serious scientists can and do present various statements with respect to climate shift. These statements range in exact degrees over time... etc. Very few if any INDEPENDENT and UNBIASED science organizations deny that human activity is a factor and that the climate is being altered.

When a "scientist" or group seems so far off the general consensus... ask yourself why. Scientists evaluate information without personal bias. "Scientists" are not the same thing. There are numerous think tanks, organizations, foundations, and just plain individuals with personal agendas. Many of these people have been used by both sides of the aisle in debates I mentioned above. Global warming is no different. Several scientists who worked on Bush administration policy have previously held jobs in think tanks funded by oil companies (source: "The Republican war on science"- good book, btw the author doesnt just attack republicans for using faulty science). The UN report is perhaps the closest thing to an unbiased fair and rational look at the situation and very closely resembles the general independent scientific consensus on this topic.

After personally and thoroughly evaluating all of the unbiased facts I think you'll be able to find out which is more likely.

You can then wait 50 years and see what happens. At that point it is my judgement that many world leaders and "scientists" will owe us an apology. (Though as any serious climatologist will tell you... global warming folks hope theyre wrong and that it does not happen)

Does that help any?

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Super Cereal Answer:

"Science" as you know it, meaning the unbiased search for answers to questions through a logical, controlled, and rational means to create theories to be tested/examined, does not completely exist in America with respect to political issues.

I can find "scientists" who claim that abortion increases breast cancer risk (data?..what... theres nothing to support this... huh). "Scientists" who suggest that condom use does not impact the spread of STDs. "Scientists" who argue for teaching "intelligent design" in a format that rivals classical creationism in god content and lack of scientific basis. "Scientists" who will argue against stem cell research based on the lack of evidence that stem cells are useful (of course they arent... we've just begun to look at them).

The point is that in any topic where science has become political you must be extremely extremely cautious with respect to who is telling you these "scientific" facts. No serious scientists debate the germ theory of disease or Newton's theory of gravity (also... take note when someone claims "its only/just a theory"... thats not a strike against it thats merely a claim that shows ignorance about basic vocabulary in science). Serious scientists can and do present various statements with respect to climate shift. These statements range in exact degrees over time... etc. Very few if any INDEPENDENT and UNBIASED science organizations deny that human activity is a factor and that the climate is being altered.

When a "scientist" or group seems so far off the general consensus... ask yourself why. Scientists evaluate information without personal bias. "Scientists" are not the same thing. There are numerous think tanks, organizations, foundations, and just plain individuals with personal agendas. Many of these people have been used by both sides of the aisle in debates I mentioned above. Global warming is no different. Several scientists who worked on Bush administration policy have previously held jobs in think tanks funded by oil companies (source: "The Republican war on science"- good book, btw the author doesnt just attack republicans for using faulty science). The UN report is perhaps the closest thing to an unbiased fair and rational look at the situation and very closely resembles the general independent scientific consensus on this topic.

After personally and thoroughly evaluating all of the unbiased facts I think you'll be able to find out which is more likely.

You can then wait 50 years and see what happens. At that point it is my judgement that many world leaders and "scientists" will owe us an apology. (Though as any serious climatologist will tell you... global warming folks hope theyre wrong and that it does not happen)

Does that help any?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch the video. The OP wants you to refute the facts presented in the video, not give us your thesis on the correlation between science and politics. In fact that video is the video that says that the global warming crowd is tainted by politics, and by money.

So please, watch the video. Al Gore's facts, and that video's facts cannot both be true. That's what the OP wants answered. I swear you people are retarded at times.

[Rearden]

Woolygimp,

"Who is right and how do you know ?"-OP

I have not examined that overall in my post?

I have watched the video

Other posters have examined the release of CO2 through natural means as global temperatures increase; this is of course independent of the causality aspect and the fact that humans... well... see the above or the UN report.

I chose to address the existence of this video and the OP's question featured above in a systemic sense.
I have done that.
Anything else?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I chose to address the existence of this video

[/ QUOTE ]

Call me a videoist. But I believe the video exists.

PairTheBoard

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Increased CO2 ---> increased temperature due to an increased absorption of infrared energy emitted primarily by the earth.

It is possible that increased temperatures will lead to increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases through secondary means. For example, if it gets hotter, people will use their A/Cs more which get their energy from power plants fueled by coal. Another example: As the permafrost and snow melts in the high latitudes, methane (a greenhouse gas too) and CO2 may be released since they were previously trapped under snow.

However, 'increased CO2 ---> increased temperature' is the main idea you should be concerned about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the increasing temperature on Earth isn't doing much to curb the supply of dumb people.

The OP is well aware of the propaganda regarding both sides and of Al Gore's argument, but he was asking for someone to refute the link he supplied in the second post which claims that CO2 is a product of temperature change and not the other way around.

If you think air conditioning is a primary factor of global warming, please let me know so I can laugh my ass off...at you.

[/ QUOTE ]

BEAUTIFUL... FREAKIN' BEAUTIFUL... If you would have bothered to read the post I was giving an example of how increasing the temperature can lead to more CO2 in an INDIRECT manner, but not directly. I understand that it is not applicable for ice core data that precedes the use of A/C.

I found a link that debunks the importance of the lag... it is listed above in another one of my posts.

[Rearden]

Pairtheboard,

Nice, you caught me

Perhaps "reasons for the existence of this video" would be better... I would hate a typo issue to derail any real discussion... wouldnt you?

[inlemur]

I don't know how you could expect anyone on 2p2 to answer this question (of refuting the facts in the video). Al Gore (well some scientists probably) proposes that increases in CO2 lead to a global temperature increase, and has a (probably) legitimate mechanism by which this can occur (CO2 contributing to greenhouse effect). Some other dudes propose that temperature increases lead to CO2 increases, and have a (possibly) legitimate mechanism by which this can occur (increased temperature leads to increased amount of biomass on earth which produces more CO2, additionally CO2 solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature).

Both of these are probably occurring, in addition to other factors which affect CO2 concentration and global temperatures. Either thermal runaway is prevented by these other factors, or one of the above mechanisms is incorrect. The problem is not only the question of whether the proposed mechanisms are correct, but also of which effect dominates, how they interact, etc. Global temperature and CO2 concentrations are governed by very complicated coupled partial differential eqations that might look something like (C = CO2 concentration, T = temperature):

[Rate of temperature change] = [function of CO2 and T that governs greenhouse effect]*C + other factors

[Rate of CO2 change] = [function of T & CO2 concentration that governs CO2 solubility]*T + [function of T and other things that governs CO2 production/consumption by biomass] + other factors

It seems to me as if it would be relatively simple to perform experiments to determine if CO2 does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting, and I assume that these experiments have been done and that the conclusion is affirmative. In that case, the video may be right in that other factors are involved and that temperature increase also leads to CO2 increase and that other biomass besides humans contributes the majority of CO2 emissions, but it doesn't particularly matter; human CO2 emissions are growing exponentially and (assuming our goal is to reduce the rate of global temperature increases) we should minimize our outputs regardless of these other effects.

For what it's worth I am a Ph.D. student in chemical engineering and not a climatologist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Increased CO2 ---> increased temperature due to an increased absorption of infrared energy emitted primarily by the earth.

It is possible that increased temperatures will lead to increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases through secondary means. For example, if it gets hotter, people will use their A/Cs more which get their energy from power plants fueled by coal. Another example: As the permafrost and snow melts in the high latitudes, methane (a greenhouse gas too) and CO2 may be released since they were previously trapped under snow.

However, 'increased CO2 ---> increased temperature' is the main idea you should be concerned about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the increasing temperature on Earth isn't doing much to curb the supply of dumb people.

The OP is well aware of the propaganda regarding both sides and of Al Gore's argument, but he was asking for someone to refute the link he supplied in the second post which claims that CO2 is a product of temperature change and not the other way around.

If you think air conditioning is a primary factor of global warming, please let me know so I can laugh my ass off...at you.

[/ QUOTE ]

BEAUTIFUL... FREAKIN' BEAUTIFUL... If you would have bothered to read the post I was giving an example of how increasing the temperature can lead to more CO2 in an INDIRECT manner, but not directly. I understand that it is not applicable for ice core data that precedes the use of A/C.

[/ QUOTE ]
No worries, Woolygimp is a useless, stubborn, jackass of a poster that can't put out effective or elaborate arguments, much less read a simple post and comment.

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
So Al Gore has his CO2 and temperature graph and uses it to show that increased CO2 has historically raised temperatures.

Then the Great Global Warming Swindle uses the "same data"(?) to show that increasing temperatures actually raises CO2, not the other way around.

Who is right and how do you know ?

[/ QUOTE ]

My first google search attempt, typed 'temperature and CO2 link' and this is the 3rd link.

CO2 amplifies warming cycles (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/)

This does not prove that increased CO2 from anthropogenic (this means 'man-made' wooleygimp) sources is causing global warming, but it debunks the idea that the lag means anything.

Notice that they reference an article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal (they have a link at the end).

[surftheiop]

Just to Clarify

I am in no way attacking global warming, just trying to understand the facts.
I dont want people to say i agree with Al Gore b/c thats what everyone else is doing.
I dont want people to say Al Gore is a jackbooted politician its all lies.

What i want is someone to address the two videos (gore and the link) that claim different conclusions based on what appears to be the same data. Dont address the messengers, address the numbers (graphs). If you dont want to do that I completly understand but please dont lecture me on politics, i dont care about global warming, i do my best to protect the enviroment regardless so not gonna effect me either way.

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to Clarify

I am in no way attacking global warming, just trying to understand the facts.
I dont want people to say i agree with Al Gore b/c thats what everyone else is doing.
I dont want people to say Al Gore is a jackbooted politician its all lies.

What i want is someone to address the two videos (gore and the link) that claim different conclusions based on what appears to be the same data. Dont address the messengers, address the numbers (graphs). If you dont want to do that I completly understand but please dont lecture me on politics, i dont care about global warming, i do my best to protect the enviroment regardless so not gonna effect me either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this. I put a link up that refuted the 'lag' importance.

[surftheiop]

thanks man!
Seems logical enough

[surftheiop]

I didnt see until now,
great link - clears it up a fair amount

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Watch the video. The OP wants you to refute the facts presented in the video, not give us your thesis on the correlation between science and politics. In fact that video is the video that says that the global warming crowd is tainted by politics, and by money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woolygimp, your tactics may be crude but you do deserve an answer.

The video's NASA scientist is Roy Spencer. He doesn't believe in evolution. The Harvard Fred Singer doesn't believe tobacco causes cancer. Are you really going to believe those two on global warming? The claim that volcanoes release more CO2 than humans in the movie is plain wrong. Goto the USGS website for info.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

Several of the graphs in that video are doctored/edited. At least one of the scientists in the movie claims he was tricked and they are taking his statements out of context.

This video is a good test of how easily one can be fooled by a handful of scientists and fancy editing more than anything else. There are are over 10,000 (possibly 20,000) scientists in the AGU. If only 1% of them are corrupt/mentally insane you have at least 100 mad and unreliable scientists. This video doesn't even have 20 members of the AGU. Think about that.

[surftheiop]

thanks for the responce

[arahant]

I just wanted to say that I had a thought about this that I didn't post because I 'figured it out' and didn't want to look silly, but maybe it is a question for discussion.

Anyway, my first thought (along the lines of an earlier post) was "i see that co2 would increase warming, but how does warming increase co2". Well, I think the video was cut off a bit early, and I sort of filled in the extra. I assume the argument about to made was that the solubility of CO2 in the oceans decreases as temperatures rise (seems obvious, really), so this would release excess CO2. I haven't looked at the graphs or whatever, but I at least understand the mechanism they are suggesting, and depending on the lag I can see how it could work either way.

That said, I don't see any way that CO2 can NOT contribute to global warming. I just don't see it. I mean, it's very clear that it 'traps' radiation and re-emits it in the infrared spectrum back to earth. I assume it's a bit of a self-reinforcing cycle, and humans are just tipping it into a cycle that may have occured anyway...

Either way, if we don't want a warmer earth, I don't see how drastic reduction in CO2 isn't a big part of the solution.

[Silent A]

Summary of the counter argument to the clip for those who don't want to read ApeAttack's link:

The 800 year lag is part of a 5000 year warming trend. The lag only suggests that CO2 was not the initial cause (first 800 years) of the warming of that particular warming trend. It says nothing about whether or not increasing CO2 concentrations cause temperatures to rise.

Also, the clip makes some rather dangerously misleading points in the last few seconds before it ends about the relative ammounts of human made CO2 and vegetation CO2. What they don't mention is that all that vegetation CO2 was pulled out of the atmosphere, mostly in the same year, before it was put back, so the net contribution of plants is close to zero.

Most of the CO2 we produce comes from fossil fuels which haven't been part of the CO2 cycle for millions of years so it truly is "new" CO2, not simply re-cycled CO2 as in the case of plants and, indirectly, animals.

This argument they're using is as bad as saying that you won $1 million playing poker this year when you only count the pots you won but ignore the pots you lost.

That they would even try to make this argument proves the film makers are either committed to propaganda over truth or simply have no idea what they're talking about.

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]

This argument they're using is as bad as saying that you won $1 million playing poker this year when you only count the pots you won but ignore the pots you lost.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! I see the whole problem of global climate change as being a huge carbon inbalance. The carbon that was in the ground in the form of oil/coal/natural gas for millions of years has been removed and released into the atmosphere.

We are responsible for releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere that would otherwise be 'safely' locked up underground and are doing nothing to reabsorb it. That is why there has recently been research in the area of carbon sequestration, to put carbon back into the ground (although this is still a long way off from being practical).

[Woolygimp]

Ok, these are fine arguments. I was crude, I admit, at the beginning of the post because those were not the answers that I and hopefully the OP were looking for.

These are much better, thanks.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
The 800 year lag is part of a 5000 year warming trend. The lag only suggests that CO2 was not the initial cause (first 800 years) of the warming of that particular warming trend. It says nothing about whether or not increasing CO2 concentrations cause temperatures to rise.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, that is incorrect. It suggests that CO2 plays a very minimal role in raising or lowering temperature. I read the Co2 article from the complete jokers at realclimate and the article uses absolutely terrible logic in its analysis.

First, it appears that there is no dispute that Co2 trails by 800 years and that the chart from the video is correct. So, even the snake oil salesmen at realclimate admit that the warming is fired by some unknown cause. RC states that while there may be some unknown trigger that starts warming that Co2 may cause the continuance of warming. This is silly and a poor attempt to explain away the problem with Co2. It is almost as if RC knows this as RC uses very weak language by its use of "could". It is FAR more likely that the mechanism that caused the initial warming is still in play. It is unknown and there is no reason to assume that it somehow ends after 800 years. In fact, there is counter evidence that it did not stop because the whole chart is lagged by 800 years and the two lines fit like pieces of the puzzle.

So, lets assume that the mechanism is still in play that caused the warming to start. Now, if this mechanism caused Co2 to be released then the rate of warming would accelerate as it would be reinforcing as you would have mechanism+Co2 warming. The warming curve would look exponential. That clearly isn't the case with the graph.

Thus, the lag supports the concept that Co2 does not warm the environment in any meaningful way or that it is counterbalanced. Now, this isn't an absolute because there is too much unknown. But it supports the argument none the less and it provides problems for the "Co2 warms the earth" crowd.

[Silent A]

Everything you say is only relevent if there is only one cause of all global warmings. To anyone with any knowledge of the systems involved this is silly. That CO2 lag does not suggest that warming causes CO2 rather than the other way around. If anything, it suggests that warming causes CO2 to increase in addition to CO2 causeing warming. This is called positive feedback and is a common phenomenon. Any evidence for a positive feedback loop between global temperature and CO2 should make you more concerned about rising CO2, not less.

Let me say this again: there is a clear, well tested, physical reason for believing that increasing CO2 concentrations will result in higher global temperatures. It's based on well established chemistry and the law of conservation of energy. It's scientificallyv as indisputable as the idea that increasing solar radiation will result in higher temperatures.

Scientists do not belive in a causal link between CO2 and temperature only by analyzing the historical temperature record, no matter what Al Gore may have said or implied.

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]

So, lets assume that the mechanism is still in play that caused the warming to start. Now, if this mechanism caused Co2 to be released then the rate of warming would accelerate as it would be reinforcing as you would have mechanism+Co2 warming. The warming curve would look exponential. That clearly isn't the case with the graph.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't that simple.

The earth has wonderful positive AND negative feedback mechanisms that keeps the climate relatively stable (it doesn't snow in Los Angeles, nor does it get above 110F often... for now). For example, if you increase CO2, the temperature increases. This may lead to more clouds which will increase the albedo (reflectiveness) of the earth, preventing some sunlight from hitting the earth and retarding the temperature increase. However, there will be a net increase in temperature.

Also, greenhouse gases become less effective (per molecule) at 'trapping' infrared radiation as their concentrations increase. The CO2 absorption bands are getting saturated relative to other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. Adding one molecule of CO2 to the air is less effective at 'trapping' infrared radiation than adding one molecule of methane. However, each CO2 molecule adds will further contribute to global climate change. This will also retard the rate of temperature increase.

The more you know...

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Increased CO2 ---> increased temperature due to an increased absorption of infrared energy emitted primarily by the earth.

It is possible that increased temperatures will lead to increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases through secondary means. For example, if it gets hotter, people will use their A/Cs more which get their energy from power plants fueled by coal. Another example: As the permafrost and snow melts in the high latitudes, methane (a greenhouse gas too) and CO2 may be released since they were previously trapped under snow.

However, 'increased CO2 ---> increased temperature' is the main idea you should be concerned about.

[/ QUOTE ]


Knowing nothing about the topic, really, what you are describing is a positive feedback cycle, and I'm not sure why this is so confusing for the OP. I'm not claiming its correct or anything, but its not confusing at all that increased CO2 causes increased temperatures AND increased temperatures cause CO2.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that were the case, the feedback loop would have destroyed the world a long time ago.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me as if it would be relatively simple to perform experiments to determine if CO2 does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting, and I assume that these experiments have been done and that the conclusion is affirmative.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would be completely and totally wrong. The ice samples are the primary source of data.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Al Gore has his CO2 and temperature graph and uses it to show that increased CO2 has historically raised temperatures.

Then the Great Global Warming Swindle uses the "same data"(?) to show that increasing temperatures actually raises CO2, not the other way around.

Who is right and how do you know ?

[/ QUOTE ]

My first google search attempt, typed 'temperature and CO2 link' and this is the 3rd link.

CO2 amplifies warming cycles (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/)

This does not prove that increased CO2 from anthropogenic (this means 'man-made' wooleygimp) sources is causing global warming, but it debunks the idea that the lag means anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually, it doesn't debunk a damned thing. That article is pure misdirection.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Watch the video. The OP wants you to refute the facts presented in the video, not give us your thesis on the correlation between science and politics. In fact that video is the video that says that the global warming crowd is tainted by politics, and by money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woolygimp, your tactics may be crude but you do deserve an answer.

The video's NASA scientist is Roy Spencer. He doesn't believe in evolution. The Harvard Fred Singer doesn't believe tobacco causes cancer. Are you really going to believe those two on global warming?

[/ QUOTE ]

So your primary defense here is ad hominem attacks, one of which is blatantly false. Fred Singer disagreed with the EPA's assessment of the dangers of second hand smoke. This isn't a terribly uncommon opinion in the scientific community, and it certainly isn't remotely close to him saying that he "doesn't believe tobacco causes cancer." But I guess making him look bad is your goal, not presenting facts.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Summary of the counter argument to the clip for those who don't want to read ApeAttack's link:

The 800 year lag is part of a 5000 year warming trend. The lag only suggests that CO2 was not the initial cause (first 800 years) of the warming of that particular warming trend. It says nothing about whether or not increasing CO2 concentrations cause temperatures to rise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, but that's a whole hell of a lot more evidence than those who are claiming CO2 is causing warming have. Inconclusive evidence > No evidence at all. The fact that the lag happened at all completely invalidates any of that data as evidence in favor of CO2 causing warming.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me as if it would be relatively simple to perform experiments to determine if CO2 does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting, and I assume that these experiments have been done and that the conclusion is affirmative.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would be completely and totally wrong. The ice samples are the primary source of data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that ice core data are the primary reason for believing whether or not CO2 causes warming?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Knowing nothing about the topic, really, what you are describing is a positive feedback cycle, and I'm not sure why this is so confusing for the OP. I'm not claiming its correct or anything, but its not confusing at all that increased CO2 causes increased temperatures AND increased temperatures cause CO2.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that were the case, the feedback loop would have destroyed the world a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a serious comment? Do I really have to point out why this is a ridiculous statement? I guess so.

CO2 is not the only factor involved in determining the temperature of the Earth and so other factors prevent (or at least hinder) a totally out of control feedback effect.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me as if it would be relatively simple to perform experiments to determine if CO2 does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting, and I assume that these experiments have been done and that the conclusion is affirmative.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would be completely and totally wrong. The ice samples are the primary source of data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that ice core data are the primary reason for believing whether or not CO2 causes warming?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm saying they're the primary source of actual scientific data. The primary reason people believe in it is the unscientific coincidence between rising temperatures and man-made CO2 over the last 100 years, the statistical equivalent of 100 hands of poker. I have never seen any actual scientific evidence to support this belief, and the ice core samples completely refute it (although I do question the accuracy of the ice core samples as well).

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me as if it would be relatively simple to perform experiments to determine if CO2 does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting, and I assume that these experiments have been done and that the conclusion is affirmative.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would be completely and totally wrong. The ice samples are the primary source of data.

[/ QUOTE ]
Alex,

CO2 warming is a very well understood and not controversial phenomenon. More CO2 is directly equal to more forcing. The only question is whether other effects (clouds, for example) mitigate this effect. You're making a joke of yourself.

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/6800/noclimatedoubtersinfoxhnj3.gif

The above table is from the latest IPCC report (I suggest you read the [censored] thing - link here(pdf) (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf)) and is non controversial.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The primary reason people believe in it is the unscientific coincidence between rising temperatures and man-made CO2 over the last 100 years

[/ QUOTE ]
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9929/rollin9xl.gif http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9929/rollin9xl.gif http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9929/rollin9xl.gif http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9929/rollin9xl.gif

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Knowing nothing about the topic, really, what you are describing is a positive feedback cycle, and I'm not sure why this is so confusing for the OP. I'm not claiming its correct or anything, but its not confusing at all that increased CO2 causes increased temperatures AND increased temperatures cause CO2.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that were the case, the feedback loop would have destroyed the world a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a serious comment? Do I really have to point out why this is a ridiculous statement? I guess so.

CO2 is not the only factor involved in determining the temperature of the Earth and so other factors prevent (or at least hinder) a totally out of control feedback effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Entirely possible, but where's the evidence for these other factors and why won't they stop global warming? You can't have it both ways. Anyway, it's all theoretical either way and the complete lack of evidence supporting the CO2 causes global warming theory is the more important thing here.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me as if it would be relatively simple to perform experiments to determine if CO2 does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting, and I assume that these experiments have been done and that the conclusion is affirmative.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would be completely and totally wrong. The ice samples are the primary source of data.

[/ QUOTE ]
Alex,

CO2 warming is a very well understood and not controversial phenomenon. More CO2 is directly equal to more forcing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very pretty chart. There's no actual data backing up the claims in it, but it's certainly very pretty.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Very pretty chart. There's no actual data backing up the claims in it, but it's certainly very pretty.

[/ QUOTE ]
And signed off on by a panel of hundreds of the world's leading climate experts and the representatives of 113 governments. Every line, statement and error bar is analyzed until the error ranges are wide enough that everyone agrees with them. The whole thing is designed to be the consensus of the scientific community and completely non controversial. In fact there have been criticisms that the report understates the most probable outcomes because the errors bars are widened towards the negative so much in order to gain a consensus agreement. What you see in that table is scientific fact.

What specific data are you looking for? We know exactly the mechanism by which CO2 produces warming. It's irrefutable physics and chemistry. There is zero debate here. The only interesting factor is the degree to which the warming is dampened by things like increased cloud cover produced by the greater heat, increased snow, etc. You're making an absolute fool of yourself if you claim that CO2 doesn't directly cause warming. Only the degree can be disputed.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
The only interesting factor is the degree to which the warming is dampened by things like increased cloud cover produced by the greater heat, increased snow, etc. You're making an absolute fool of yourself if you claim that CO2 doesn't directly cause warming. Only the degree can be disputed.

[/ QUOTE ] The degree may be zero or negligible.

Also, the IPCC report is utter hogwash with no scientific validity. Note - so far they have only released a summary without the supporting information. Thus, what they have released is meaningless. This is nothing more than a political document. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the summary is not signed off my hundreds of scientists. My understanding is that relatively few sign off on the summary version. But, I could be wrong.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only interesting factor is the degree to which the warming is dampened by things like increased cloud cover produced by the greater heat, increased snow, etc. You're making an absolute fool of yourself if you claim that CO2 doesn't directly cause warming. Only then degree can be disputed.

[/ QUOTE ] The degree may be zero or negligible.

Also, the IPCC report is utter hogwash with no scientific validity. Note - so far they have only released a summary without the supporting information. Thus, what they have released is meaningless. This is nothing more than a political document. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the summary is not signed off my hundreds of scientists. My understanding is that relatively few sign off on the summary version. But, I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I heard that the summary completely misrepresents the report. The actual report says that GW can't possibly be caused by humans, and hundreds of climate scientists agreed. But then Chirac got involved, and he and Putin orchestrated the production of this subversive summary to make the United States look bad. The guy who signed for the US had his family kidnapped to force him to sign the summary.

None of the hundreds of scientists have spoken out yet about the glaring discrepancy between the summary and their conclusions, because the UN has made it clear that anyone who ever reveals the true facts will be sent to syria and tortured.

You read that story about E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession? Pretty damning stuff, huh?

Anyway, it's nice to finally find a kindred soul on this board who understands what's going on with the world.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very pretty chart. There's no actual data backing up the claims in it, but it's certainly very pretty.

[/ QUOTE ]
And signed off on by a panel of hundreds of the world's leading climate experts and the representatives of 113 governments. Every line, statement and error bar is analyzed until the error ranges are wide enough that everyone agrees with them. The whole thing is designed to be the consensus of the scientific community and completely non controversial. In fact there have been criticisms that the report understates the most probable outcomes because the errors bars are widened towards the negative so much in order to gain a consensus agreement. What you see in that table is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your only evidence is "because they say so." Well, unlike you, I simply don't trust "them."

[ QUOTE ]
What specific data are you looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any evidence linking CO2 as a cause for increased temperatures.

[ QUOTE ]
We know exactly the mechanism by which CO2 produces warming. It's irrefutable physics and chemistry. There is zero debate here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it should be really easy to find evidence, shouldn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
You're making an absolute fool of yourself if you claim that CO2 doesn't directly cause warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily, I've never claimed any such thing. I simply want to see some evidence.

[inlemur]

[ QUOTE ]


So your only evidence is "because they say so." Well, unlike you, I simply don't trust "them."

[ QUOTE ]
What specific data are you looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any evidence linking CO2 as a cause for increased temperatures.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, you're saying you don't accept the conclusions of experts in their fields whose results were published in peer-reviewed journals? If this is the case then you should probably stay clear of any sort of scientific discussion, as you must have a poor understanding of how it works.

The evidence is, as mentioned, as established as anything in the scientific community is. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, which makes it (along with several other gases) what is called a "greenhouse gas". Sunlight is mostly high frequency radiation, and passes through the atmosphere because it does not absorb in that region. Various earthbound objects do absorb in that region, elevating the energy level of the molecules in those objects (and increasing their temperature). Radiative heat transfer occurs, where these excited molecules can lose heat by emitting radiation in the infrared region. This radiation passes back through the atmosphere, where it is absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen (about 70% of the atmosphere), do not absorb infrared. Thus the larger the concentration of infrared absorbers in the atmosphere, the more energy is held within the atmosphere instead of leaking back out into space.

This is, as I mentioned, trivially easy to show in a lab by measuring the absorption/emission spectrum of the various atmospheric gases, so since you apparently refuse to take the word of those who are experts in the field, you can perform the experiment yourself. It is also standard curriculum in most 4th grade classrooms.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So your only evidence is "because they say so." Well, unlike you, I simply don't trust "them."

[ QUOTE ]
What specific data are you looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any evidence linking CO2 as a cause for increased temperatures.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, you're saying you don't accept the conclusions of experts in their fields whose results were published in peer-reviewed journals? If this is the case then you should probably stay clear of any sort of scientific discussion, as you must have a poor understanding of how it works.

The evidence is, as mentioned, as established as anything in the scientific community is. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, which makes it (along with several other gases) what is called a "greenhouse gas". Sunlight is mostly high frequency radiation, and passes through the atmosphere because it does not absorb in that region. Various earthbound objects do absorb in that region, elevating the energy level of the molecules in those objects (and increasing their temperature). Radiative heat transfer occurs, where these excited molecules can lose heat by emitting radiation in the infrared region. This radiation passes back through the atmosphere, where it is absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen (about 70% of the atmosphere), do not absorb infrared. Thus the larger the concentration of infrared absorbers in the atmosphere, the more energy is held within the atmosphere instead of leaking back out into space.

This is, as I mentioned, trivially easy to show in a lab by measuring the absorption/emission spectrum of the various atmospheric gases, so since you apparently refuse to take the word of those who are experts in the field, you can perform the experiment yourself. It is also standard curriculum in most 4th grade classrooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

A beautiful theory. Too bad the evidence of the earth doesn't seem to support it. Such a shame, because on paper it just seems so simple and logical and it can be shown in a lab. Go figure.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
This is, as I mentioned, trivially easy to show in a lab by measuring the absorption/emission spectrum of the various atmospheric gases, so since you apparently refuse to take the word of those who are experts in the field, you can perform the experiment yourself. It is also standard curriculum in most 4th grade classrooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

First demonstrated by John Tyndall in 1859! Google it, Alex.

[inlemur]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So your only evidence is "because they say so." Well, unlike you, I simply don't trust "them."

[ QUOTE ]
What specific data are you looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any evidence linking CO2 as a cause for increased temperatures.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, you're saying you don't accept the conclusions of experts in their fields whose results were published in peer-reviewed journals? If this is the case then you should probably stay clear of any sort of scientific discussion, as you must have a poor understanding of how it works.

The evidence is, as mentioned, as established as anything in the scientific community is. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, which makes it (along with several other gases) what is called a "greenhouse gas". Sunlight is mostly high frequency radiation, and passes through the atmosphere because it does not absorb in that region. Various earthbound objects do absorb in that region, elevating the energy level of the molecules in those objects (and increasing their temperature). Radiative heat transfer occurs, where these excited molecules can lose heat by emitting radiation in the infrared region. This radiation passes back through the atmosphere, where it is absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen (about 70% of the atmosphere), do not absorb infrared. Thus the larger the concentration of infrared absorbers in the atmosphere, the more energy is held within the atmosphere instead of leaking back out into space.

This is, as I mentioned, trivially easy to show in a lab by measuring the absorption/emission spectrum of the various atmospheric gases, so since you apparently refuse to take the word of those who are experts in the field, you can perform the experiment yourself. It is also standard curriculum in most 4th grade classrooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

A beautiful theory. Too bad the evidence of the earth doesn't seem to support it. Such a shame, because on paper it just seems so simple and logical and it can be shown in a lab. Go figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence exactly doesn't support it? Maybe you are looking at temperature-CO2 data from earth's history and concluding from some discrepancy that they either have nothing to do with each other or that CO2 in a lab behaves differently from CO2 in the atmosphere. If you are doing the former then you are underappreciating the complexity of the system and if you are doing the latter then you are an idiot.

See my first post in this thread. The climate is governed by unfathomably complicated coupled partial differential equations. One (out of who knows how many) component of these equations is greenhouse gases, which have been thoroughly characterized for over a century. CO2 does absorb in the infrared spectrum, there is no getting around it. Concluding from that fact that an arbitrary increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration must be accompanied by some increase in the average atmospheric temperature would of course be a fallacy due to the complicated nature of the system. However, we know that it does contribute, and we know which way it contributes, so writing it off as not related would be a much more serious error.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Concluding from that fact that an arbitrary increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration must be accompanied by some increase in the average atmospheric temperature would of course be a fallacy due to the complicated nature of the system.

[/ QUOTE ]That is my only real point. We are in agreement.

[ QUOTE ]
However, we know that it does contribute, and we know which way it contributes, so writing it off as not related would be a much more serious error.

[/ QUOTE ]Seems pretty logical and I would be strongly inclined to agree that it contributes, although I don't know enough about the subject to say that I believe anything definitive. My questions would be more around the scalar.

[TheFaucet]

The Great Global Swindle is the most misinformed and manipulative polemic documentary that I have had the displeasure of watching and the producers should be shot for creating such rubbish.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
So Al Gore has his CO2 and temperature graph and uses it to show that increased CO2 has historically raised temperatures.

Then the Great Global Warming Swindle uses the "same data"(?) to show that increasing temperatures actually raises CO2, not the other way around.

Who is right and how do you know ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both are right. CO2 increases global temperature. Increasing temperature raises CO2 levels. It is a positive feedback loop. This is not a good thing.

Also, human activity has been increasing CO2 since long before the industrial revolution, due to deforestation for agriculture and firewood. Also rice agriculture generates methane, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. The industrial revolution accelerated the process. The climate is getting warmer quite rapidly, with potentially disastrous consequences for humanity. Regardless of the cause (although IMO, there is little doubt that burning fossil fuels is a major, if not the primary component of it), reducing CO2 emissions will slow or possibly stop the process.