The Global Warming Debate

[Steezie]

Ok, I've REALLY tried to stay out of the whole global warming debate but after reading some posts....I just...CANNOT sit on my hands about it much more.

I do NOT understand how people can sit there and go "nope nope nope, not happening, never".

Almost every single reputable climatologist and organization that deals with the possibility of global warming are saying the SAME THING
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India
US National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
American Geophysical Union
National Academy of Sciences (US)
Commission on Geosciences (US)
Environment and Resources (US)
The Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
French Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK)
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Association of State Climatologists

The ONLY reputable scientific organization to reject global warming is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (Shocker, guess who's checks are signed by BP) The AAPG is the only major professional organization in the natural sciences that formally rejects the likelihood of human influence on recent climate changes.

 

[revolutio]

I'm just surprised we are still referring to it as a debate.

 

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Its the Sun guys...nuthin we can do. Check out the vid :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

 

[Steezie]

Its the Sun guys...nuthin we can do. Check out the vid :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

Ok....so why does every single reputable climatological organization ON THE PLANET except one agree that this is a problem?

That video is an HOUR long, care to summarize?

 

[huldah153]

.

 

[Steezie]

Global warming is nothing but a tax scam. As Bill Gray, the world's top expert on hurricanes and chronicle meteorology, describes it: "fear perpetrated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants." Human are NOT the main cause.

Then why does every major meteorological, climatological, and geological organization in the world disagree with him?

I read a book on this, 'Biology' by Graham Marples. According to him, the atmosphere's CO2 content remains remarkably constant at from 0.03 percent to 0.04. If there's a sudden increase, say from a volcano, a large amount mixes with the atmosphere but, it makes not an iota of difference because the sea dissolves the excess where it is converted to bicarbonates. If the level falls, c02 is liberated from the ocean to the air to restore the balance. Thus the sea, which has an unlimited capacity, maintains the c02 content. Infact, during a major volcanic eruption, more co2 is released into the atmosphere than from all the exhaust emissions of motor vehicles since they were invented.

That doesnt seem to be the case.

There seems to be a steady rise in CO2 levels as the years progress. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by approximately 110 µL/L or about 40%, most of it released since 1945. Monthly measurements taken at Mauna Loa ( http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm )

 

[DaveS]

It is true that levels of CO2 have been rising in the last 30 years and so has the temperature. The graph below shows their relationship for the last 400,000 (or so) years:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

As you can see there is pretty close correlation and also the biggest mistake made by science in the last 30 years.
Now the current thinking is that carbon dioxide drives the climate due to the greenhouse effect. This should mean that when there is a raise in the level of carbon dioxide then temperature should also raise at the same time or shortly after. Take another look at the graph, particulary in the last 20,000 years. As you can see from here the last significant rise in temperature following the last ice age actually occured before the rise in CO2. This would seem that CO2 isn't actually controlling anything.... but it is being controlled by temperature!

 

[Steezie]

It is true that levels of CO2 have been rising in the last 30 years and so has the temperature. The graph below shows their relationship for the last 400,000 (or so) years:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

As you can see there is pretty close correlation and also the biggest mistake made by science in the last 30 years.
Now the current thinking is that carbon dioxide drives the climate due to the greenhouse effect. This should mean that when there is a raise in the level of carbon dioxide then temperature should also raise at the same time or shortly after. Take another look at the graph, particulary in the last 20,000 years. As you can see from here the last significant rise in temperature following the last ice age actually occured before the rise in CO2. This would seem that CO2 isn't actually controlling anything.... but it is being controlled by temperature!

The graph seems to say differently, the temperature seems to follow fairly close the level of CO2. A spike in CO2 levels in the atmosphere seems to be very closely followed by a rise in temperature which indicates that one probably has something to do with the other.

If the CO2 isnt causing the temperature change, what is?

 

[DaveS]

The graph seems to say differently, the temperature seems to follow fairly close the level of CO2. A spike in CO2 levels in the atmosphere seems to be very closely followed by a rise in temperature which indicates that one probably has something to do with the other.

I would say the other way around - remember that to properly judge the leading factor you must look at which takes the move first. This clearly means that the one moving first must be the causal factor as if it depended on the other why would it be moving in the first place?

If the CO2 isnt causing the temperature change, what is?

The current theory is that the climate is controlled via the sun and cosmic rays, this is explained well (including further debunking of traditional global warming) in the book 'The Chilling Stars' by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder.
The following article explains quite well how solar irradiance is quite likely to affect global temps:

http://biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html

It is quite a popular subject so a google search should fetch quite a few hits.

 

[Steezie]

I would say the other way around - remember that to properly judge the leading factor you must look at which takes the move first. This clearly means that the one moving first must be the causal factor as if it depended on the other why would it be moving in the first place?

What process causes CO2 levels to rise in response to elevated levels of temperature and where is this CO2 comming from?

The current theory is that the climate is controlled via the sun and cosmic rays, this is explained well (including further debunking of traditional global warming) in the book 'The Chilling Stars' by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder.
The following article explains quite well how solar irradiance is quite likely to affect global temps:

Im affraid I dont have time or the money to get and/or read this book, care to summarize?

 

[DaveS]

What process causes CO2 levels to rise in response to elevated levels of temperature and where is this CO2 comming from?

Although no *formal* study has yet taken place (that I know of) it is assumed that the increased CO2 levels are a response to increased overall global activity caused by the higher temperatures. For example, in the case of plants increased temp. means that one of the limiting factors is removed resulting in more photosynthesis and ensuing respiration. This then allows the plant to spread more quickly which encourages animals to increase in population size. It is these animals that help increase levels. Of course recently we are also responsible for CO2 increases although as explained this has a relatively small effect (rapidly decreasing) on temps. I think there are various other theories about - - - lets hope someone more knowledgable than myself will come along!

Im affraid I dont have time or the money to get and/or read this book, care to summarize?

Ugg.. that is quite difficult to do! The best thing I can suggest is to read the linkie I provided or to Google for any other shorter articles.

 

[Steezie]

Although no *formal* study has yet taken place

Convienent

it is assumed that the increased CO2 levels are a response to increased overall global activity caused by the higher temperatures.

Yes, and I asked HOW higher temperatures cause a greater quantity of CO2 to build up, the exact processes that take place

The problem with this theory is that if it was actually true, our planet would be a scorched rock, probably similar to Venus. If elevated levels of heat meant a rise in CO2 levels, you have a problem. CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat, so the heat hitting the planet would generate CO2, which would trap more heat and produce MORE CO2 which would trap MORE heat and produce MORE CO2. So we either suffocate or burn.

Plant life's ability to convert CO2 to Oxygen would negate the process somewhat but eventually the process will get beyond vegetation's ability to convert the CO2 and you'll fry the planet.

 

[DaveS]

The problem with this theory is that if it was actually true, our planet would be a scorched rock, probably similar to Venus. If elevated levels of heat meant a rise in CO2 levels, you have a problem. CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat, so the heat hitting the planet would generate CO2, which would trap more heat and produce MORE CO2 which would trap MORE heat and produce MORE CO2. So we either suffocate or burn.

Plant life's ability to convert CO2 to Oxygen would negate the process somewhat but eventually the process will get beyond vegetation's ability to convert the CO2 and you'll fry the planet.

That is assuming that CO2 is the main driver of the global climate/temp. to start with.
However, as I am suggesting that the changing levels of solar activity is actually mainly responsible for most temp. changes throughout history then it is quite likely that the sun will fluctuate, thus lower temperatures and then CO2 levels will drop.
Have you actually read the article (or similar)?

 

[Steezie]

That is assuming that CO2 is the main driver of the global climate/temp. to start with.
However, as I am suggesting that the changing levels of solar activity is actually mainly responsible for most temp. changes throughout history then it is quite likely that the sun will fluctuate, thus lower temperatures and then CO2 levels will drop.
Have you actually read the article (or similar)?

Ok, you dont seem to be getting what I'm saying.

Even if CO2 isnt the cause of global warming, the theory you present is impossible. If it was real, it would cook the planet. If solar activity raised the heat levels in the planet and if the increase in heat leads to an increase in CO2 on Earth, you end up in a destructive cycle. According to this theory, heat creates CO2. Now CO2 is UNIVERSALLY accepted as an insulating agent when in the atmosphere. That is cold, hard, un-disputable scientific fact. In your scenario, heat creates CO2 (And you still havent explained exactly how that works) which insulates the planet, creating more heat. The extra heat creates more CO2 which creates MORE heat which in turn creates more CO2. You end up with a planet with an atmosphere that is choaked with CO2 and too hot for life.

The scenario where heat creates CO2 is impossible

 

[DaveS]

Even if CO2 isnt the cause of global warming, the theory you present is impossible. If it was real, it would cook the planet.

No it would not.

If solar activity raised the heat levels in the planet and if the increase in heat leads to an increase in CO2 on Earth, you end up in a destructive cycle.

Well actually if you had read the article (or similar) you would find that solar activity does not actually directly affect global temperatures but rather the solar activity is an indication of the strength and radius (not actually spherical but you get the idea) of the sun's magnetic field. This has a nice property of deflecting many cosmic rays from reaching Earth. However, the effectiveness of this depends on the sun's activity. In periods of high solar activity the mag. field is large and blocks many cosmic rays; particularly the muons. This causes the earth's temp to rise. However, in periods of low solar activity the mag field is not so effective and hence allows increased levels of cosmic rays (notably muons) to penetrate Earth. This often causes a fall in temperature.
The reasons why CRs affect the climate are quite complicated and get fairly technical fairly quickly. I would recommend finding an article explaining this as I do not trust myself to explain it properly... and it requires more than a few diagrams.

Now CO2 is UNIVERSALLY accepted as an insulating agent when in the atmosphere. That is cold, hard, un-disputable scientific fact.

True.

In your scenario, heat creates CO2 (And you still havent explained exactly how that works) which insulates the planet, creating more heat. The extra heat creates more CO2 which creates MORE heat which in turn creates more CO2. You end up with a planet with an atmosphere that is choaked with CO2 and too hot for life.

The scenario where heat creates CO2 is impossible

Ah I see where you are going wrong.

In my scenario CO2 is definitely NOT created by increased temperature. However, increased temperature will often allow certain biochemical processes to occur at an increasing rate. This can be seen clearly with the law of limiting factors. Many of these processes will produce CO2 as a by-product which as a result will cause an increase in CO2.

 

[Steezie]

Well actually if you had read the article (or similar)

You didnt give me an article, you gave me a BOOK.

you would find that solar activity does not actually directly affect global temperatures but rather the solar activity is an indication of the strength and radius (not actually spherical but you get the idea) of the sun's magnetic field. This has a nice property of deflecting many cosmic rays from reaching Earth. However, the effectiveness of this depends on the sun's activity. In periods of high solar activity the mag. field is large and blocks many cosmic rays; particularly the muons. This causes the earth's temp to rise. However, in periods of low solar activity the mag field is not so effective and hence allows increased levels of cosmic rays (notably muons) to penetrate Earth. This often causes a fall in temperature.

Ok, do you have ANY scientific data to back this up?

In my scenario CO2 is definitely NOT created by increased temperature.

You stated previously that it was

However, increased temperature will often allow certain biochemical processes to occur at an increasing rate.

Such as?

Many of these processes will produce CO2 as a by-product which as a result will cause an increase in CO2.

Again, such as? Nevermind the fact that this is not possible because of the dramatic level of change and the fact that it would be largely negated by plant life

 

[DaveS]

You didnt give me an article, you gave me a BOOK.

The current theory is that the climate is controlled via the sun and cosmic rays, this is explained well (including further debunking of traditional global warming) in the book 'The Chilling Stars' by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder.
The following article explains quite well how solar irradiance is quite likely to affect global temps:

http://biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html

It is quite a popular subject so a google search should fetch quite a few hits.

I gave both.

Ok, do you have ANY scientific data to back this up?

In the article; the book is better in layout but I'm sure there are a few other articles out there set out in a similarl user-friendly way.

You stated previously that it was

Where?

Such as?

Photosynthesis.

Again, such as? Nevermind the fact that this is not possible because of the dramatic level of change and the fact that it would be largely negated by plant life

Respiration.
Could you please expand on your last sentence?

 

[Steezie]

I gave both.

Funny, the article doesnt explain the process either.

In the article; the book is better in layout but I'm sure there are a few other articles out there set out in a similarl user-friendly way

So lets see them, the burden of proof is on you.

Where?

it is assumed that the increased CO2 levels are a response to increased overall global activity caused by the higher temperatures.

Photosynthesis.

Which actually works AGAINST your theory as plants convert CO2 to Oxygen. Try again.

Respiration.

What kind of respiration?

Could you please expand on your last sentence?

The CO2 level spikes dramatically then drops dramatically. Going by the numbers, it shouldnt drop so dramatically and it definately shouldnt rise so dramatically if solar radiation is the cause.

 

[DaveS]

Funny, the article doesnt explain the process either.

Erm... practically the entire article is on solar irradiance. As I have already said there maybe better articles out there as I didn't look for very long --- I have already read the book so to me it makes sense while to someone who hasn't it may not.

So lets see them, the burden of proof is on you.

Hardly, I have already provided an article and a book. For your convenience I have provided more websites for you to look at:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Proves that CO2 has much less of an effect than is thought by the IPCC.
http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html
One theory which supports the above article's assertions.
http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
Another disproof of CO2 Theory.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
An article which disproves then suggests the other theory; with possible proof from Mars.

Which actually works AGAINST your theory as plants convert CO2 to Oxygen. Try again.

They then use the oxygen in the process of respiration... which produces CO2.

What kind of respiration?

Aerobic.

The CO2 level spikes dramatically then drops dramatically. Going by the numbers, it shouldnt drop so dramatically and it definately shouldnt rise so dramatically if solar radiation is the cause.

Why not? Solar irradiation can increase or decrease dmratically, leading to dramatic increases or decreases in temperature which can then result in big inc/decs in CO2 levels. Besides, these big 'spikes' usually occur over a few thousand years even though they may look 'quick'.

 

[Steezie]

Erm... practically the entire article is on solar irradiance. As I have already said there maybe better articles out there as I didn't look for very long --- I have already read the book so to me it makes sense while to someone who hasn't it may not.

The article does not explain the process that you claim exists. If you've read it, paraphrase.

Hardly, I have already provided an article and a book. For your convenience I have provided more websites for you to look at:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Lots of pretty pictures, but I have questions about the science aspect in this one. Theres nothing thats just out and out wrong, but some of it is....embellished. IE: The part where it states that the ocean is a buffer for CO2 because of it's "large solubility in water". CO2 is indeed soluble in water, but the actual solubility rate of CO2 is 1.45 kg/m³. Thats good, but not as massive as the article makes it sound. The entire article makes use of very dramatic and complicated language to say very simple concepts.

Proves that CO2 has much less of an effect than is thought by the IPCC.
http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

The Tunguska Blast is the best they can come up with? We've been hit by asteroids for millions of years and theres never seemed to have been a problem. The article also fails to explain the steep rise in CO2 levels in the latest centuries ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png )

One theory which supports the above article's assertions.
http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

"The cause is heat from the earth's core. Heat from the earth's core is what keeps lakes from freezing solid after ice forms on the surface. The amount of heat from the earth's core appears to be increasing and heating the oceans, which is the cause of ice ages. The primary evidence is the exact cycling of ice ages. " Im sorry but that is plain ridiculous. If thier only evidence is the cycling of the ice ages, then that is a less than credible theory.

Another disproof of CO2 Theory.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...6fef8763c6&k=0

This guy's prediction flies in the face of every single climatological model and study since we first started looking at global warming. I also notice they dont actually SHOW any of this evidence, just say that its there.

They then use the oxygen in the process of respiration... which produces CO2

A negligible ammount and one that is far dominated by the ammount of O2 that plants produce

Aerobic.

Do you have any statistics for the ammount of CO2 produced by this process or that it's sped up by excess heat?

Why not? Solar irradiation can increase or decrease dmratically, leading to dramatic increases or decreases in temperature which can then result in big inc/decs in CO2 levels.

Yes but the processes which you allege create this CO2 bloom work much slower than that. Im not disputing that solar radiation cant go active that fast, but the response to that radiation would be far slower than it is alleged to be

Besides, these big 'spikes' usually occur over a few thousand years even though they may look 'quick'.

A few thousand years is pretty fast when you're talking about a planet.