Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Climate Change Debate

  1. #1 Climate Change Debate 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1
    Of course, it seems highly plausible that CO2 is responsible for the current warming if we trust the data. But what if a large chunk of the data is corrupted because of cherry-picking and data rigging? Then that would mean that man-made Global warming is a myth, and that is quite possible because it is known that historical temperature level and the aggregate of major natural factors correlates perfectly until the recent period.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    But what if a large chunk of the data is corrupted because of cherry-picking and data rigging?
    Then you would have only the rest of the data left.
    Then that would mean that man-made Global warming is a myth,
    That would depend on what your theory, mechanism, and remaining data seemed to indicate.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    moved to environmental issues, where by agreement of the moderator team this topic belongs
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    To the thread title... There is no debate. There's a group of people with their heads up their asses, and another group who choose to live their lives with an existence based in reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman tswiczko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    12
    The human body produces about 250 btuh.sleeping and as much as 2400 btuh. during hard labor.

    Yup I'd say we're a contributing factor in climate change
    T

    "The calamity that comes is never the one we had prepared ourselves for."-Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Climate Change Debate 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Of course, it seems highly plausible that cigarettes are responsible for increasing cancer risk if we trust the data. But what if a large chunk of the data is corrupted because of cherry-picking and data rigging? Then that would mean that smoking-related illnesses are a myth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Climate Change Debate 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by KIMCHIJJIGAE
    Of course, it seems highly plausible that CO2 is responsible for the current warming if we trust the data. But what if a large chunk of the data is corrupted because of cherry-picking and data rigging? Then that would mean that man-made Global warming is a myth, and that is quite possible because it is known that historical temperature level and the aggregate of major natural factors correlates perfectly until the recent period.
    In my opinion, global warming indeed occurred in this century, and my research interest was fairly focused on this issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Climate change is a certainty whether humans are helping it along or not. No matter what the cause of climate change is, it is almost always bad for a large percentage of all life currently living in the Earth biosphere. Every mass extinction was the result of a major climate change, be it caused by an asteroid strike or major volcanic activity or possibly some cyclical Earth orbital issues.

    I'm not trying to say it's not important to know how, why and when climate changes, but it seems to me that finding ways to mitigate the effects or even reversing climate change would be very important, and if we aren't up to that task, what plans do we have to take care of our human population, so we don't become an extinction statistic. Not that anybody would be around to care if that happened.

    All I ever see in the NEWS is finger pointing blame and denial and now even conspiracy theory to make the very rich even richer.

    I've heard scientists talk about Terra forming other planets so that we can live there much like we now live on the Earth. How successful are we going to be at that if we can't even keep an already good biosphere healthy enough for us to survive in?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    29
    In my opinion, there are 4 questions that need to be addressed in this context. I would be interested in having all these covered when we discuss about this topic. I have to say that I'm not very knowledgeable in the details of this. I read time and again that there is overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change, and I trust this basically on the grounds that it is irresponsible to spend much time on doubting it, where you could spend this time on thinking about solutions. However, it would be good to have an overview of the argument. The questions are:

    1) Is there a higher concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere than ever before? I believe so, but don't have the data in front of me.

    2) Is gobal warming occurring at the moment? I hear it everyday, but don't have the data in front of me.

    3) Is (2) being caused by (1)? This well-established to be the case and is called "greenhouse effect". This should not no longer be doubted.

    4) Is (1) man-made? This is probably the most interesting question. Again, I'm pretty convinced that the answer is 'yes'. But I wouldn't know how exactly how to argue this out, except starting by saying "Well, we do know that mankind has increased CO2 emissions by a factor of x since xxxx (of course it would be an impressively large factor x and xxxx surprisingly recent)". But is that the maor driver behind (2)? I'm not arguing against it. But perhaps someone could tell me how the argument goes.


    But what is FAR more important and what really strikes me every day is this: You can (if you are a hard-core skeptic and have not much faith in the data) have your doubts about man-made climate change, but can you afford inaction? If you face uncertainty about the effect of any given underlying problem, with an (admittedly also uncertain) likelihood of catastrophic outcomes...can you really afford to gamble, lean back and say "Oh well, it might be just a scare after all..."?

    Suppose you stand in the middle of a very lonely road and somebody gives you $100 per hour you keep standing there for as long as 10 days. You do the maths and you are completely excited about the prospect of making $24.000 in just 10 days. The only condition is that you will be chained to the road and it takes 10 mins to get you off that road. You start with the certain knowledge that no car will be reaching you within the next 30 mins. So you are safe...for now. You also have a messenger you informs you about the traffic ahead. He tells you 12 mins in advance if a car is approaching. However, you somehow have your doubts about the integrity of your messenger. Popular rumors have it that he has a vested interest in scaring you and chances are that he is lying to you and there won't be a single car in a year. What do you do? Let's assume a conservative probablity that he is telling the truth about the approaching car (3%). Could you afford not to loosen the chain within the next 10 mins and get your self off the road? Can you really afford to gamble? I would like to start a poll (is that possible here?). I suspect that 99% of respondents would get off the road. WHY IS IT THEN...that we don't see 99% of politicians acting? Why is it that we don't have 99% of citizens supporting politicians in such actions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by erwinigel1000
    1) Is there a higher concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere than ever before? I believe so, but don't have the data in front of me.
    "Ever" is a very long time, however, with that said...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...27s_atmosphere
    The present level [of CO2 in our atmosphere] is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years, and likely higher than in the past 20 million years.

    Be sure to actually click that link and read more if you're truly curious, as well as the links I share below.


    Quote Originally Posted by erwinigel1000
    2) Is gobal warming occurring at the moment? I hear it everyday, but don't have the data in front of me.
    Yes. The average annual global temperatures are rising, have been rising for several decades, and are expected to continue to rise for quite some time... and this is all true even if we completely cease 100% of CO2 output today, without delay.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrum...erature_record





    Quote Originally Posted by erwinigel1000
    3) Is (2) being caused by (1)? This well-established to be the case and is called "greenhouse effect". This should not no longer be doubted.
    Just to be clear, there are several factors which impact climate change, and human contributions of CO2 are only one. However, when studied closely, it soon becomes painfully obvious that human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are easily the single biggest driver of the current increases on global annual average temperatures.



    Quote Originally Posted by erwinigel1000
    4) Is (1) man-made? This is probably the most interesting question.
    See response to #3.


    Quote Originally Posted by erwinigel1000
    Again, I'm pretty convinced that the answer is 'yes'.
    And that is the most accurate approach given the evidence and information available to us.


    Quote Originally Posted by erwinigel1000
    But I wouldn't know how exactly how to argue this out...
    Here's a pretty great site. Get yourself a delicious beverage, a comfortable place to sit, and spend some time reading at the following.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/


    Quote Originally Posted by erwinigel1000
    But what is FAR more important and what really strikes me every day is this: You can (if you are a hard-core skeptic and have not much faith in the data) have your doubts about man-made climate change, but can you afford inaction? If you face uncertainty about the effect of any given underlying problem, with an (admittedly also uncertain) likelihood of catastrophic outcomes...can you really afford to gamble, lean back and say "Oh well, it might be just a scare after all..."?
    You've just reminded me of this cartoon:


    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    29
    Thanks, inow, much appreciated. I will definitely have a look at the website you have given me. Nice cartoon, rams home the message...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Climate Change Debate 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by KIMCHIJJIGAE
    Of course, it seems highly plausible that CO2 is responsible for the current warming if we trust the data. But what if a large chunk of the data is corrupted because of cherry-picking and data rigging? Then that would mean that man-made Global warming is a myth, and that is quite possible because it is known that historical temperature level and the aggregate of major natural factors correlates perfectly until the recent period.
    For a new member you've opened a very active thread. I'm some what surprised that you yourself are not being more actively involved in responding. If you need some forum advice or help don't hesitate to ask. One thing I know that does make a big difference is in your profile, be sure and check the box to be notified by email anytime someone posts to any thread you've posted in. It will help you respond in a timely manor or just simply keep up with all the new posts in the threads you have an interest in.

    Anyway welcome to this forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    13
    Firstly, Let us consider Climatic change on a longer time scale. The climate system on Earth has been changing since the formation of the Earths atmosphere. Evidence for this can be seen in the Sedimentary Record. The sedimentary record shows patterns in sediment flux, shape, distribution. These changing patterns are typical of changing climates (Rising sea levels, Ice ages, Marine Transgressions and regressions, Glacio-isostatic changes etc). These Observations can be correlated with the Milankovich cycles, and together can be used as evidence to show how the Climate system has been continuously in a state of change (from glacial to interglacial). This leads us to the questions; Are we currently in an interglacial period? If so, how long before we re-enter a glacial?

    Now, lets look at more recent climatic trends. Generally, when people discuss climate change, they speak of Increasing temperatures, rather than climate. When climate changes, not only is temperature at different levels affected, but Sea level pressures, Wind vectors, Precipitation, Surface potential evaporation etc. (This is purely for the sake of climate change skeptics reading. So if you are a climate change skeptic, look up the NCEP reanalysis tool and use it to observe changing climates in recent times). Recent climate trends suggest increasing temperatures on a timescale of 300 years. While the cause of this has not yet been exacted, it can be correlated with rising levels of CO2, and other greenhouse gases (N2O, CFC12, CFC11,and CH4). Hypocritically, I'll focus on CO2 and Temperature (as also relating to the topic). Since the industrial revolution, 1750's, CO2 concentrations have been increasing from 275ppm to 372ppm (recent, 2000). CO2, along with water vapour and other green house gases, absorb counter radiation (out of the 47% of the 342W/m2 of the shortwave radiation received at the earths surface, 4% is reflected back towards the atmosphere as counter radiation). This absorbed 'heat', is now contained within the atmosphere (I understand that there are large amounts of other processes left out here that influence this, however, they can be explained upon request). Because of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since the 1750's, one would expect a subsequent increase in temperature. There has been an observed increase in temperature which can be found in many source's (ipcc report, or dlugokencky et al,2005, etc.).

    However, this increase in temperature cannot be attributed to CO2 alone. many other factors need to be taken into consideration i.e. Volcanic eruptions, ENSO, NAO, changes in albedo, 11.1 year solar cycles (all major climatic influences) etc. That is why it is difficult for any one climatologist to study climate change on such a short increasing temperature trend record. They can only work with what data they have.

    Apologies for the long winded answer.. in short, CO2 contributes to warming of the atmosphere, like it always has. However, levels of CO2 have been changing and is a contributor to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is what keeps our planet at a comfortable temperatue, however, Increasing greenhouse gases, such as CO2, can cause global heating/climate change.

    The climate is changing and always has been, but the current change appears to be more rapid and is LIKELY to be the result of anthropogenic process'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •