Ok im confused about "facts" regarding global warming

[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

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).