Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

[Yliginou1]

We are doing good to predict the weather, the idea of manipulating it artificially seems fanciful at best. Industrial pollution on the other hand I can easily accept could lead to a greenhouse effect, looking at this strictly from a layman's perspective. I'm very curious about an alternative view to global warming, what appears to be a conspiracy theory doesn't appear to be very helpful.

Interestingly enough human-caused pollution in the early to mid 20th century caused a global COOLING (called the "Mid Century Cooling") due to increased sulfate emissions. Once we cleaned up the air in the 1970's the warming due to greenhouse gas emissions picked up again.

 

[John Bowen]

Have people ever considered the melting of the polar ice caps is a good thing ? There models out there that show it will open up vast areas that are now deserts like Australia and Africa .And we are talking only seven ft if they all melted in hundreds of years . By then they will have leaves like in New Orleans around Florida , California . The population will have grown and people need room to live and grow food. It will also make the climate more mild so people can live where its impossible now.

 

[Yliginou1]

Have people ever considered the melting of the polar ice caps is a good thing ?

If the Greenland Icesheet melts it will dump a huge amount of fresh water into the northern Atlantic. That will change the density gradients which are in large parts responsible for the Gulf Stream and the Thermohaline Circulation. This will cause western Europe to become much colder. (There's evidence in the geologic record that the Thermohaline Circulation has reorganized or stopped in the past). I would assume this could effectively destroy much of their agriculture and probably much of their societies.

I don't see how melting land-based ice in the North would be a good thing. Unless destroying western Europe is considered a "good" thing.

 

[juvenissun]

Warming can cause dissolved gases to exsolve from ocean water. But if you look at the isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 you'd see that it is increasing in 12-C over 13-C indicating it is coming largely from vegetal and fossil fuel combustion. So it's a pretty good indicator of where the excess CO2 is coming from.

That is true. But this is a very recent data from atmospheric samples. Was it the same in the previous interglacial periods? Either was or was not, the fear of global warming crisis is unfounded.

 

[juvenissun]

Patrick Moore wasn't a founder of Greenpeace.

As for CO2 and scientific proof that human emissions of CO2 are dominant, well, human activity in general accounts for the majority of global warming based on what are called forcing factors. We know a great deal about NATURAL forcings (like the sun or ocean circulation etc.) and right now the various factors we know of that are natural DON'T account for the warming we see. But you know what does? Human activities such as greenhouse gas emissions. They explain a HUGE amount of the warming trend we see. And we know the recent run up in greenhouse CO2 emissions is due to humans because of ISOTOPIC signatures in the carbon of the CO2.

Human released very negative 12/13 into air AFTER the earth was already warmed up to its peak temperature in the Pleistocene. So, human released CO2 is obviously NOT related to the warming of the earth.

 

[Yliginou1]

Human released very negative 12/13 into air AFTER the earth was already warmed up to its peak temperature in the Pleistocene. So, human released CO2 is obviously NOT related to the warming of the earth.

Prior to about 10,000 years ago the relative ratio of 12C/13C was somewhat stable and right about the middle of the 19th century the amount of 12C increases dramatically.

Prior to the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons the amount of 14-C was also decreasing (again as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil fuels).

This correlates well with the increase in temperatures we see since the 19th century.

 

[Yliginou1]

That is true. But this is a very recent data from atmospheric samples. Was it the same in the previous interglacial periods? Either was or was not, the fear of global warming crisis is unfounded.

CO2 also can cause warming. That is how it works. It absorbs in the IR region.

CO2 can lead and lag temperature increases. There is no reason to assume that the current global warming ISN'T worthy of serious concern. Unless one is looking for some reason to maintain doubt so they don't have to take any real action.

 

[KWCrazy]

The greater threat is Global Warning Gullibility.
One cannot exactly be in denial of something which is not real. Climates change. We don't get the credit.
The world IS going to end, but not in a thousand years because man chose to drive SUV's, but at any moment because Jesus Christ promised to return. All of the events preceding His return have come about. There is no promise He will give us another day. Stop pretending we have the power to thwart God's plan. We don't. The warming you have to worry about comes AFTER death.

 

[Tanj]

Wow, an actual conspiracy theory, I'm beginning to wonder if starting this thread was a good idea.

He uses the same source for his arguments as you do Mark, which is to say youtube. I'd be interested to know why you consider your youtube videos to be interesting arguments and yet dismiss his youtube arguments.

 

[juvenissun]

This correlates well with the increase in temperatures we see since the 19th century.

Not only in the 19th Century, it correlates in the past 1 million years. But this does not mean CO2 caused warming. It could be reverse in relationship.

 

[juvenissun]

CO2 also can cause warming. That is how it works. It absorbs in the IR region.

CO2 can lead and lag temperature increases. There is no reason to assume that the current global warming ISN'T worthy of serious concern. Unless one is looking for some reason to maintain doubt so they don't have to take any real action.

Do not just repeat what you know. Think about my point.

 

[mark kennedy]

He uses the same source for his arguments as you do Mark, which is to say youtube. I'd be interested to know why you consider your youtube videos to be interesting arguments and yet dismiss his youtube arguments.

The credibility of the one making the youtube arguments, particularly the one in the OP. I'm dealing with skepticism regarding man's influence on global warming and chem. trails and HAARP weather control, I've been seeing these conspiracy theories for years. Honest, credible skepticism about global warming was something new for me. While I still think it's a stretch, it appears to have a substantive basis. I don't mind the introduction of a conspiracy theory in here, just don't find them terribly persuasive.

 

[Yliginou1]

Do not just repeat what you know. Think about my point.

The Cenozoic ice ages are correlated with the Milankovich Cycles (orbital changes). These kick off and end the ice ages. Once warming has started, yes, CO2 can exsolve from the oceans and other sources. That is why you think CO2 only lags temperature.

But, as has been known for over 150 years, CO2 absorbs in the IR and later we understood that it can can DRIVE temperature change as well. That is why it is important to understand what part of the Milankovich Cycle or other natural forcings cycles we are in. Right now the excess CO2 shows that it is coming MORE LIKELY from human sources than it is simply exsolving from the ocean (isotopic data), and the recent temperature increases cannot be explained by the known natural forcings without including the introduction of human activities into the explanation.

 

[juvenissun]

the recent temperature increases cannot be explained by the known natural forcings without including the introduction of human activities into the explanation.

Why not? Today's temperature is not unreasonably high if human never existed. We DO NOT see the warming effect of the anthropological CO2.

 

[Tanj]

The credibility of the one making the youtube arguments, particularly the one in the OP. I'm dealing with skepticism regarding man's influence on global warming and chem. trails and HAARP weather control, I've been seeing these conspiracy theories for years. Honest, credible skepticism about global warming was something new for me. While I still think it's a stretch, it appears to have a substantive basis. I don't mind the introduction of a conspiracy theory in here, just don't find them terribly persuasive.

Could you elaborate further? Moore is a business man with no scientific experience or training, he's about as qualified to interpret climate data as you or I am (assuming you are not a climate scientist). I find identical levels of credibility between the two videos.... which is to say 0. Would it be fair to say that one of your primary drivers for what is credible is what you find "persuasive" at first pass?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Isn't the burden of proof on those who claim global warming is real and man-made?

That human activity, particularly burning fossil fuels, has a detrimental effect on climate in terms of rising global temperature, has been known and demonstrated for decades.

There are even internal memo's of board meetings of large oil companies from the 70s where exactly that was being discussed. So even the oil companies themselves have known about it for some 50 years...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hi the best argument about this topic is scientific and does not deny climate change but postulates that the global chem trailing of the atmosphere with metallic particles and the use of HAARP has effected the weather we see in the headlines and the culprit is not man made carbon emmission but a global geo engineering program. There are many good documentaries on this topic. This issue is also the single most important platform issue for the formation of a global government. The idea of using the weather and ecology as a global common threat was proposed back in the 60's as the best way to institute global unity. Ive looked into this for decades and if you spend about 5 hours researching it you can decide weather you think this is a credible possibility.

Conspiracy nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can not prove it (so can’t anyone else), but I strongly suspect the increase of CO2 is A Consequence of global warming. Challenge anyone who says otherwise.

So the rise of industries and the ever increasing rate of burning fossil fuels, has nothing to do with it?

However, it is true that as termperature rises, gasses (co2 among them) trapped in ice is being released as that ice melts.

But let's not pretend as if the MASSIVE SCALE at which humans are burning fossil fuels, is not what put that whole thing in motion.

 

[juvenissun]

But let's not pretend as if the MASSIVE SCALE at which humans are burning fossil fuels, is not what put that whole thing in motion.

What massive scale? I only see the thing in ppm scale.

 

[mark kennedy]

Could you elaborate further? Moore is a business man with no scientific experience or training, he's about as qualified to interpret climate data as you or I am (assuming you are not a climate scientist). I find identical levels of credibility between the two videos.... which is to say 0. Would it be fair to say that one of your primary drivers for what is credible is what you find "persuasive" at first pass?

That's not what I'm getting, he was arrested for trying to prevent the clubbing of baby seals. Tried to save the whales chalkenging a Russian whaler. He was there in the early days, don't recall his degree. As far as the OP, he is a meterologist who was a weatherman on Good Morning America and started thw weather channel. If you want to dismiss their credentials thats fine, but at least consider their background and training first. Patrick Moore and Bob Hunter are said to be the founders of Greenpeace, if you know better do tell.