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

When I say global warming I refer to the theory of anthropogenicly induced global warming.

 

That essentially I guess is the crux of the difference here. You view the subject as discussion of a political issue or problem. I am concerned with understanding of objective reality and our environment as enumerated by science. If we want to start discussing whether we should, or how to react to reality, we all have to all agree on reality.

I am not discussing a problem, I am discussing the interactions of the natural world.

 

just hang on to this big rock we call earth and enjoy the ride. im global warmed out.

 

Actually, as so often in this thread, you don't see. I am saying that we, as laymen, should listen to what scientists have to say about scientific issues. That's what they're there for.

No. The only reason I ever posted in this thread was to refute your weak objections to scientists' conclusions on global warming. There was no reason for me to post such evidence, as long as I refuted your arguments.

However, if you want me to direct you to climate models which have successfully used greenhouse gas levels to predict climate change, I can do that. Here's a good one by James Hansen, with an accompanying essay:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

This is a lovely rant. Unfortunately, I said the report was written "for" policymakers, not "by" policymakers.

This debate is rapidly becoming silly.

 

I can't read your mind.

And no - it's not a given that antrhopogenically global warming is a fact. There's still many scientists who do not agree and there in not a consensus.

 

But all you have been able to discuss is that global warming is happening and that based on what you think and the statements of other people - it's man-caused.

If that's all you have to say, then fine. But you haven't even provided anything other then a correlation of CO2 and temp increases. SO that's it right? You got nothing more to say beyond that?

What's comical is how you guys say there's a "MOUNTAIN" of evidence to say global warming is caused by men and yet when you look over this thread you don't see a lot of evidence, just a bunch of "they said so's"

 

Yes - I'm tired of models. That was my whole point, is that all people can come up with are stastical models and correlations, which isn't scientific proof for man-caused global warming. NO one here can even show evidence that the increase in CO2 is man-caused.

Look, go believe your religion of man driving up the thermostat on earth, when you actually have some evidence, post it. Meanwhile, why not try to see the other side? Oh yeah, religious zealots can't do that can they?

 

Can you give me an example of the type of evidence that would be suitable for you? The very concept of global warming lends itself to correlations and observations. Its so far-reaching and wide-scale that observation tends to be the only thing we can do.

So question for you... what's your opinion on the big bang, evolution, and dinosaur extinction? All three of which are based solely on observation and not on actual scientific experiments.

 

all you have is one correlation with global warming. THe only observation is to support an increase in tempertures.

The big bang has been shown by science to be supported by the fact that if it were true, scientists predicted certain effects. The big one the spot on prediction of a certain wavelength of background radiation.

Man-induced global warming has not stood up to that kind of scientific rigor.

One correlation isn't enough proof - that's all I am saying.

 

What is this? The 50th thread on the same crap?

I don't believe in global warming. I could care less if you do.

What I do know is that China is burning coal at a much larger capacity than we ever did, and "according to scientists" that is the worst way to burn fossil fuel.

Here's the ultimate point that I would hope pleases every rational person. Screw conservation. China is ruining that idea whole-heartedly. Instead, shove a sh!tload of money towards R&D in developing a new form of clean energy that is ultimately less expensive.

Look at what China did with cell-phones. Rather than create a complete land line infrastructure, they just used what was cheaper to build and supply.

The only way you keep everyone satisfied is by finding a new form of energy.

And it would also shut up this idiotic debate.

 

There is no such thing as "proof" in science. The correlations are strong enough to show a definite relationship, while the accuracy of predictions made using climate models based on the theory of global warming is strong enough to validate that theory. This is the closest thing to "proof" that we can have on an issue like this, unless you know of some way that we can create extra Earths to use as controls.

In fact, you just posted this:

That is exactly what scientists have done with the theory of global warming. They have used it to make accurate predictions.

Your M.O. in this debate is really becoming apparent:
Make a statement. When your statement is shown to be incorrect, move to a completely different argument, acting as others are at fault for not having already addressed it. If this thread lasts another few pages, I'm sure you'll be saying something like, "In this whole thread, NO one has even shown any evidence that people are burning fossil fuels!"

As for your claim here, read this.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
There is ample evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Then you are mistaken, and your attitude here shows an unhealthy closed-mindedness.

Actually, even with its developing, rapidly growing economy, and the excuses for burning less-clean fuels that that would seem to provide, China still produces only about 7.5% more CO2 than America. Considering that China has 4.4 times the population of the US, to blame the Chinese for global warming is pretty hypocritical.

 

models and correlations do not lead much credance in science. Models are inheriently flawed in that they are really only extrapolating based on known variables....so if you say CO2 increases temp, your model will show that of course.

What amazes me is that you dont know anything about this theroy you so love. What's really amazing is that I actually am more aware of the "proof" that supports the idea that global warming is man-made then you do. I can actually tell you the two or three things that make people think global warming is man made - and it's not a correlation. BUt you have no idea. Not any idea. You can't even mention on thing.

However, the evidence is not anywhere conclusive. Even your precious IPCC has stated as such, only saying it's "likely" and warning that this is not conclusive since natural phenomenon are playing an unknown impact.

Fact is no one knows how much of a role CO2 is playing in global warming. It could be small or large. You just don't know....yet you act like you do.

Did you know that man-made CO2 accounts for only 3% of all carbon emissions from all sources (man and otherwise)? Did you know that human's breathing accounts for 10% of man-made emissions - so just a population doubling has lead to a 4-5% increase in "man-made" Co2.

And CO2 emissions will continue to increase, and increase, and increase. It will likely double since China is sky-rocketing and will soon dwarf what the rest of the world puts out. You think 20 some million tonnes is bad???

But you know what I think it very intriguing. If CO2 is so important in raising tempertures.....you'd think that an increase of 30% in CO2 would have resulted in more then a half-degree increase in temp. Nope, all you got was half a degree.

Is it CO2, or a water vapor feedback loop that's been spirally upward and will only stop when a point of equilbrium is reached? No one knows that for sure.

I can say that no one knows for sure - yet you think you know...and frankly, that says you really don't scrutinize your beliefs a whole lot.

Guess you and the fanatics have a lot in common huh?

 

This is getting tiring.

Maybe you should have actually read the article I posted. The theory of global warming was used to make predictions which have since come true. I posted that because I thought you might find it interesting, seeing as you had previously suggested that what really made a theory valid was the ability to use it to make predictions.

I never claimed that the case for AGW was conclusive. In fact, I just posted that there is never any proof in science. I did, however argue that the existence of AGW is, based on the evidence, likely enough as to make action necessary.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf
From page 4 of the summary of the 2007 IPCC report:

It is very likely that the observed increase in methane concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, but
relative contributions from different source types are not well determined.

The footnote at the bottom of the page defines "very likely" as a likelihood of greater than 90%.

Read pages 2 through 4 of the link I just posted. You're simply wrong. Besides which, your numbers here make no sense. If "human's breathing accounts for 10% of man-made emissions", a "population doubling" would have to cause a 10% increase in anthropogenic CO2 even without including increased CO2 from sources other than human breath.

Actually, "all you got" is .74 degrees Celsius, or 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit, which is definitely enough to cause environmental disruption, even though we're still in the early stages of warming. Does it bother you that your numbers are always wrong?

 

Ok, so I have better things to do with my time than continue to argue with a person who obviously just plans to indefinitely keep posting false figures and who fails to even read what I post. So here's what I'll do. I won't post in this thread anymore unless:

A) someone besides NewYorker posts something worth responding to
B) NewYorker posts something which another poster then recognizes in some way as response-worthy (I'm betting this won't happen)

 

A wise decision.

 

OK, this is kind of funny:

From the article that started this thread:

Finally, this:

This is wrong. Since (at least) the ancient Greeks humans have known the Earth is round.

 

maybe ancient greeks knew, or some, but during columbus' time is another story.

actually, i think ancient egypt calculated the circumference of the earth. regardless, the point in general is still a good one. Whats popular isnt always right.

my opinion, with or without humans the earth would be warming now. Now, has it been made 'worse' by humans...i think thats a very real possibility and i tend to lean towards yes, but only on a marginally

Next, what can/should we do about it? Well we are stuck where we are right now. Everyone can do little things to help but it will take a long time to cut fossil fuels back to any significantly lower level. And even then it may not do anything for the earths natural progression could very well still continue to get hotter.

 

No, the medieval-early modern Europeans knew the Earth was round as well.

EDIT: PS - that original European knowledge came from Greece, not Egypt. But you are right, the Egyptians did all sorts of measurements. It just wasn't passed on to the West.

 

I agree with this assessment. Probably industrialization is contributing to the warming, but no one knows how much or to what extent the earth will warm. We also don't know what impact cutting back on CO2 would actually have.

I think with China's output of greenhouse gases expected to grow considerably we can expect emissions to continue to rise probably significantly.

THe most sound strategy would be to find ways to reduce CO2 impact that wouldn't hamstring economies (such as nuclear power, reforestation, hooking up natural gas pipes to cow's butts) as well as just learning now to adopt with the effects of a warmer planet.