1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[Newsweek] Which of These Is Not Causing Global Warming Today?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by No Worries, Jun 30, 2007.

  1. NewYorker

    NewYorker Ghost of Clutch Fans

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    41
    Because when you look at the longer term history of the planet, you can see two things:

    1. The earth normally does not have permanent ice and is MUCH warmer then it is today.
    2. That the earth is constantly in a state of flux.

    You have all these scientists who are biologists, geologists, meterologists, claiming they are experts and declare global warming is man made and can be stopped if only we cut back on CO2 admissions.

    What no one talks about is that water vapor is by far the most powerful greeenhouse gas. That cycles run in feedback loops, and then even if we cut CO2 emissions to pre-industrialized levels, the earth would continue warming and warming because we're in a cycle where as increased temperture results in less ice and more water vapor.

    More water vapor and less ice leads to increased warming.

    Historically, CO2 levels rise AFTER the tempertures start rising and may in fact be a symptom of Global warming - not a cause.

    Methane could have been the trigger for the current warming trend.

    In any case, the earth changes. The history of life on this planet has been about adoption, not about keeping things the same. We need to learn how to adopt to a warmer planet, not trying to take one correlation and turn it into a gospel that preaches going back to the stone age is the only hope for humanity.
     
  2. NewYorker

    NewYorker Ghost of Clutch Fans

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    41
    Why don't you look it up...and you'll see i'm not laughing or trying to make you laugh.
     
  3. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,223
    Likes Received:
    13,425
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holocene

    Holocene
    The more recent of the two epochs of the Quaternary Period, beginning at the end of the last major Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago. It is characterized by the development of human civilizations.
     
  4. NewYorker

    NewYorker Ghost of Clutch Fans

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    41
    I love how you omit the definition of what an ice age is and just present the colloquial definition....so I did a search on google, and the first link was to wikipedia, and clicked on it and look what I found:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

    You just can't see any other interpretation but your own. Why not try to keep an open mind instead of saying things are "not true" or the same as the "sun rising in the west"???
     
  5. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,223
    Likes Received:
    13,425
    Ok. Here you go:

    Ice Age:
    1. Any of several cold periods during which glaciers covered much of the Earth.

    2. The most recent glacial period, which occurred during the Pleistocene Epoch and ended about 10,000 years ago. During the Pleistocene Ice Age, great sheets of ice up to two miles thick covered most of Greenland, Canada, and the northern United States as well as northern Europe and Russia.

    Why does it upset you that I didn't include the definition of Ice Age? It also amuses me that you go on to throw out 'the coloquial' definition, as if a great expert who has a superior understanding to the common man.

    I concede that you found some apparently some obscure book definition that I was unaware of which is used by nobody. Congratulations. If you are basing your understanding on the Wikipedia article, I think that says enough by itself. Note it is even a Wikipedia article free of source references.

    So I concede your technical point, but I do not concede that the earth is supposed to be heading to a period of warming (it will head to a period of cooling), which is the whole reason you mentioned it. And I do not concede that any more than an obscure minority use the definition that you have given.
     
  6. Steve_Francis_rules

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 1999
    Messages:
    8,467
    Likes Received:
    300

    In a paper just released to astro-ph last week, Sloan and Wolfendale estimated that this effect should account for less than 2% of the warming over the last 35 years.
     
  7. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    Sorry, I cannot look it up due to the massive ice sheet covering the internet.


    Curse this ice age.
     
  8. NewYorker

    NewYorker Ghost of Clutch Fans

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    41

    I didn't learn this from wikipedia, I just did a quick search and the first link verified what I had been saying.

    Here's what so strange about your man-caused global warming belief. The last "ice age" ended 10,000 years ago....so clearly, we are in a warming cycle, unless you are saying that we are suppose to be in a cooling cycle, which doesn't fit the interglacial periods for the last 400K years.

    Ok, so let's say temps in the last 100 years, especially in the last 30 years have increased at a higher rate. What caused this increase? You are arguing that it is man created CO2. But what gets ignored is this:

    The chief greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2. Even methane has a more powerful impact. What if it is methane that's the primary driver of the increase in temp?

    CO2 increases have TRAILED temp rises. This is true now and for other interglacial periods.

    You have left out the possibility that we are in a feedback loop. That is, the increased temp is causing greater water vapor, and this in turns causes more heat to be trapped and thus increases temp which tehn increases temp and so on.

    Also, the melting of the ice caps result in increased warming (less ice to reflect sunlight) and increase water vapor. This should once again accelerate more warming.

    With these effects, it is certainly not known that cuttin CO2 will have any impact on the atmospheric temperatures. No one knows. You must concede that it is entirely possible that we are now in a warming cycle that will only subside when it extends beyond some equilbrium point...

    What is additionally amusing about you and Sishir is that you never bring up any evidence of climate change being caused by man except the correlation between CO2 and temps. There is other indirect evidence that hardly anyone mentions on the environmental side - further demonstrating their ignorance into what they are so religiously supporting.

    They never mention that temp increases would be maximal at night or winters, which is more readily explained by greenhouse gases then natural temperture increases. This is because if greenhouse gases did indeed result in the current warming, the effect (which really is about slowing cooling more then heating) would be felt more during the night as temperature cool versus during the day when they are rising. We all know this effect on a humid night, as water vapor traps heat. By the same token, a layer of greenhouse gases above trap heat below (or rather reflects it back to the surface).

    But I've seen analysis done which show that 95% of the warming effects come not from CO2, but rather water vapor! 95%! And that when you consider that some of the increase in CO2 has been natural (in fact, some say it's mostly natural)...then it shows CO2 as contributing something like 0.1% to our current warming...with natural C02 having contributed 3% and the rest to other green house gases and water vapor.

    Thus, as you can see, the thought that cutting back on C02 will have any significant impact on warming is a hypothesis at best, about as much as thinking there was a snowball earth.

    You just don't know. Are you going to make major decisions on such poor information????
     
  9. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,223
    Likes Received:
    13,425
    Well, since the data shows clearly that that is not what is happening at the present time, perhaps we can rule out the natural climate processes that you talk about?

    Actually it is fundamental to every theory. Without water vapor, CO<sub>2</sub> effects would be minimal.

    Water vapor is not an external forcing. Anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> is. That is simply the beginning and the end of why water vapor is not important in calculating the effects. It is a variable totally contained by the system.

    We covered this before.

    [rquoter]
    Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

    If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

    This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

    CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

    [/rquoter]

    BTW, please show me where the 95% 'analysis' is. The number is often tossed around but nobody seems to be able to find the actual 'analysis'.

    You are right. There is also no direct "proof" that the core of the earth isn't made of green cheese. However, based on basic scientific concepts, like the way that metals are much more conductive of electric current, I am cool with the nickel-iron theory. It fits the data and the basic laws of physics, in the same way that the basic laws of physics inicate that carbon dioxide absorbs more energy in the bandwidths of solar radiation, so increasing its relative concentration will increase solar energy absorption.

    Tell me exactly what would be sufficient "proof" and then maybe I can go about finding it for you. Personally, I think I have a better grasp on the system than you and think you keep repeating evidence which has been discussed and dismissed, which is pretty annoying to me.
     
  10. ham

    ham Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "95%" claim is simply not true.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220
    As for methane, yes, it is a "more powerful" greenhouse gas, but there is so much less of it in the atmosphere than CO2 that its impact on global warming is much smaller than that of CO2.

    As I posted before:

    As I posted above, that is pretty much exactly what appears to happen with CO2, which explains why increases in CO2 have lagged behind increases in temperature in the past.

    What exactly makes you think that temperature increases "at night or winters" would not have a very detrimental impact on the environment?

    I will concede that there is never any proof of anything in science. There is, however, such a thing as having such massive amounts of evidence that to take no action on the information in front of you is irresponsible.

    One final point:
    There are millions of laypeople just like NewYorker out there who approach controversial scientific issues just as they approach political issues. They form their opinions first and then search for justifications, leading them to seize upon anything that they think they can use as a point in their argument.

    The problem with that approach is that these are issues of objective fact, the many facets of which are being actively investigated by a huge community of experts. The odds of any layperson stumbling upon some previously unconsidered objection to a theory as widely studied as global warming are extremely remote.

    It's time to let the scientists make the scientific conclusions. The community of laypeople seems to have enough on its hands making the political decisions.
     
  11. NewYorker

    NewYorker Ghost of Clutch Fans

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    41

    Since you are not a layperson, I assume you are a climatologist. Why don't you explain all the forcing factors and the proof that man made emissions are causing global warming?

    I mean, you talk about massive amounts of evidence but all you and Ottoman have shown is correlations. Nothing more. That's not "massive" as you claim oh climatologist! or should i say scientologist.
     
    #31 NewYorker, Jul 3, 2007
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2007
  12. NewYorker

    NewYorker Ghost of Clutch Fans

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    41
    While water vapor is not forcing, it could take over as the primary mechanism once a system is not in equilibrium. Some event, whether it be volcanism of the early half of the warming through the 1930's or whether it was industrialization, triggered a warming cycle that might be now fueled by positive feedback mechanisms.

    First of all, if you know so much about CO2, why don't you address the question of how do you know for sure Co2 is at the root...and that man made co2 is attributable for the increase in co2 in the atmosphere and that it's not from natural sources as some claim.

    You and others hear have failed to prove strong evidence on these points:

    1. That the increase in CO2 levels are due to man-made activities that can be reduced significantly back to 1700 levels simply be cutting down on the consumption of fossil fuels.
    2. That CO2 is the chief CAUSE of global warming and not merely correlated with it
    3. That a reduction of CO2 will infact reduce the warming cycle enough to have a major impact weighed against the socio-economic costs - or whether our energy is best placed in learning to adapt to a warming planet.
    4. That even if all three of the above are shown to be true, that it is still politically viable to have a solution considering that CHina alone has already surpassed the U.S. as the number of emitter of greenhouse gases and is on pace to produce more CO2 then all countries int he world combined - in other words, CO2 output will continue to increase even if we cut back.

    The jobs will just keep going to China.

    So...since you know a lot about this subject, and your only evidence is a correlation chart, I'm interest in you showing all your great knowledge and providing some evidence to support this.

    Just because you believe in it doesn't mean other people's questions are invalid. I don't care if your best friend's daddy is a climatologist working for the IPCC either.
     
  13. ham

    ham Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where did I claim that I wasn't a layperson? What I said was that "It's time to let the scientists make the scientific conclusions." That's what I'm doing. See, of the two of us, only one is in agreement with the majority of climatologists.

    It was never my intention to post all of the evidence for anthropomorphic global warming. I merely set out to refute your objections to the conclusions that climatologists have drawn.

    By the way, anyone who's interested should read the IPCC's summary of its 2007 report, which was written for policymakers and is thus readable by laymen. NewYorker, you can read it to see that scientists have indeed found a causative relationship between anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and climate change.
     
  14. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,223
    Likes Received:
    13,425
    Uh... no it actually can't. To repeat:

    [rquoter]
    It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

    If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

    [/rquoter]

    First, the truth about global warming, whatever it is, is exists independently of whether you find it convenient or not. One should not judge the validity of a theory on the basis of whether you like the outcomes.

    Furthermore, at no point have I introduced any proposed remedies. I dare you to find the location where I advocated any of the arbitrary things you say I must prove. If you want to discuss economic mitigation we can do that, but it is an entirely different discussion.

    If you want to ask me, for instance, what I might propose, that might be a good place to start before asking me to prove something that I don't advocate or demand. Perhaps I advocate letting the planet warm up. You won’t know unless you ask.

    Given that, the only question that has any to the discussion relevance (in that it isn’t based in economic outcomes or potential responses) is #2 and so that is the only one that I will address, but first I would ask you again for an example of what you would consider 'proof'. If you can provide me with an example of a condition that you would view as sufficient, I can know to what level I should hold myself.

    Once that has been done, I will answer your question, most likely tomorrow.
     
  15. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    I'm coming late to this thread and have just barely skimmed it but to respond to the water vapor argument.

    Yes water vapor is a greenhouse gas but there are a couple of basic problems in regard to saying that naturally occuring water vapor is the main cause. As Otto noted that the atmosphere has so only so much carrying capacity so it self regulates, relative humidity and dew point. The only way the atmosphere can carry more water vapor is to heat up raising the dew point so increased water vapor is also an affect of warmer temperatures already. Next increasing water vapor as a warming agent is also regulated by cloud formation. More cloud formation means that the Earth has a higher albedo, reflectivity, leading to more heat being reflected back out and cooling. So while water vapor does play a role its one that without other factors does self regulate.

    In regard to human made global warming though it also needs to be considered that human activity has increased evaporation through things like clear cutting forests and irrigation. It is possible that water vapor is increasing and contributing to warming and that too is due to human activity.
     
  16. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    Couldn't agree more! Anyway opposing proposed solutions to global warming are short sighted since even without global warming there are tons of benefits to moving away from depending on fossil fuels as our primary energy source.
     
  17. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    New Yorker is so horrendously wrong about this topic that its a wonder you guys still bother to reply to his silly assertions.
     
  18. NewYorker

    NewYorker Ghost of Clutch Fans

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    41
    I see, so you are saying that science is a democracy?????

    Is that because you have no evidence for antrhopomorphic global warming other then an IPCC report that says it's happening and a corrleation between Co2 and temp increase?

    Ahhhh! Old switcharoo huh? I like how you put it that the report is written by "policymakers" which translates to politicians.....

    So you are suggesting that we use what politicians say once again. Sorry charlie, too many holes. Science isn't about democracy....it's not about what policymakers think either.

    Just because you are with the majority doesn't mean you are in the right. Once a majority of thinkiers and policy-makers thought the world was flat. How wrong they were.
     
  19. NewYorker

    NewYorker Ghost of Clutch Fans

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    41
    Yes, but with increased temperature, you can have more water vapor - which causes increased temperture. This is a called a positive feedback loop. Once started it continues until an equalibrium is reached. Thus, now...not matter what happens, we may be trapped in this loop....and it will have to run it's course.


    Nice strawman. Once again, I have never disputed that the earth is warming. You keep repeating this. Global Warming is more close to fact then theroy. What you have failed to prove is if it's connected to human activity and whether reduction of that activity will do anything.

    If you want to ask me, for instance, what I might propose, that might be a good place to start before asking me to prove something that I don't advocate or demand. Perhaps I advocate letting the planet warm up. You won’t know unless you ask.[/quote]

    then what is your purpose in your position? Just to say that an ice age really is and that global warming is happening? great - so we have global warming...what's the point of saying this over and over? Unless you have a solution to a problem, then why bother pointing out the problem in the first place?

    Can you demonstrate evidence that the warming is due to CO2 versus other gases? Can you show more then a simple correlation which does not reveal causation? Can you bring evidence that - if global warming is currently being caused by Co2? For instance, can you show that water vapor has remained constant in the past 30 years rulling that out as the cause? How do people know that increases in temperture is not part of a natural feedback loop that was kicked off by volcanic activity for instance? Or that the melting of the previous ice ages reflective ice is leading to the increased water vapor and temp. You say that excess water vapor would be washed out of the atmospher...but you don't address the fact that water vapor would lead to warmer temperatures which in turn could sustain more water vapor. The atmosphere is not static.

    Can you show that the increase in CO2 levels is not driven by natural processes. How much of CO2 has being released by nature? I understand that most of the CO2 is due to natural causes, and that man-made Co2 is a tiny fraction. How can a tiny fraction account for a 30% increase in this gas in the atmosphere?

    If you provide actually evidence over ideas or thoughts....studies done, or actually analysis - hey, I'll listen and consider. But people just because some report or poll or some scientist "says so" isn't good enough.
     
  20. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,223
    Likes Received:
    13,425
    Switcharoo by you? It says for policymakers, not by.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now