The truth of global warming II

[Deuce]

But saying that Co2 is the primary cause of the recent warming trend over and above all other contributing factors IS the same as saying that the CO2 is GENERATING heat.

No it isn't. You seem to lack fundamental understanding of how heat even works.

Ok, back to the definition of a CAUSE. That is the producer of an effect. The blanket is NOT the producer of the effect... the effect being 'warming', the CAUSE in this case is the body warming.

Semantics.

Your body is running around 98F, the blanket is not CAUSING this 98 degrees, the BODY is causing the warmth... and let's say the blanket IS causing warming, how much is it going to cause?? 0.5 degrees? 1 degree? More if you're talking about a large duvet... we're talking about a SMALL PERCENTAGE of an increase as opposed to the CAUSE of the effect of warming.

The blanket is a metaphor that you seem way too fixated on.

This is a VERY IMPORTANT point because it does not allow you to put CO2 in this big pedestal of importance, and forces you to keep CO2 in it's proper perspective.

For the 900th time, nobody has ever suggested that CO2 is the only factor. Straw man again.

Yes, it plays a MINOR INFLUENCE on the climate with the feed-back loops... maybe 2-3% of the overall warming of the past 150 years should be attributed to CO2 (that's a guess, but it's to make the point)

Says you. On the other hand, thousands of scientists who have done decades of work to figure this out say that it is substantially higher.

Yes, and I'm not saying it's any one single factor... the largest factor IS solar forcing. To think otherwise is nonsensical, but even then it's not that simple, because you have the solar winds that also get diverted differently depending on the location of the moon, interstellar phenomenon are also probably more important then we realize, the overall global cloud cover would create a cooling force on the climate, etc...

Yet you repeatedly make arguments that only deal with one variable. If you only look at one variable, it doesn't matter what the variable is, you'd probably conclude it's a poor correlation. Are you suggesting that the sun is a poor correlation too? Because I could make the same argument about the sun. Except I wont, because the sun actually correlates quite nicely if you account for all the variables we know of.

Show me a global warming proponent that's predicting a cooling of the climate.

Also, show me where Co2 is going to alter the jetstream (which moves more as a result of atmospheric pressures then CO2), but I'd like to see you back this up... (though more likely you'll dodge another issue)

Cooling of the climate in some regions. Pay attention. Yes, actually, there are AGW proponents who believe this will happen. In fact, a grossly overblown and warped version of this theory was the basis for that movie The Day After Tomorrow. (the real effect would be just less warm water being circulated towards the UK and dropping its average temperature somewhat, not a massive superstorm that causes an ice age in the US)


The jetstream IS mostly a result of pressure changes... and what do you suppose causes those pressure changes?

 

[ptif219]

Yes, come to think of it, you made that same spurious argument before. Of course, neither the blanket nor the greenhouse gasses produce heat. The do retain heat however, and so are the cause of the increasing temperature.

So then I guess the earth should start cooling.

FT.com / US & Canada - US greenhouse gases drop to 15-year low

 

[BmanMcfly]

No it isn't. You seem to lack fundamental understanding of how heat even works.

Then where does the heat come from with this "co2 induced warming" that's worthy of all the hype and fearmongering attached??

Either a theory makes sense or it doesn't.

Semantics.

Yes, one being semantically correct and one being deceptive.

The blanket is a metaphor that you seem way too fixated on.

You chose the metaphor, and I'm trying to explain the details of what is being ignored THROUGH your metaphor.

For the 900th time, nobody has ever suggested that CO2 is the only factor. Straw man again.

The 'primary' factor... it's not even the primary greenhouse gas...

Says you. On the other hand, thousands of scientists who have done decades of work to figure this out say that it is substantially higher.

Meanwhile EVERY projection they've made that I've seen has WAY overshot the actual results... the only sense in which it can be called 'accurate' is by giving themselves a HUGE margin for error, one that would take nearly a decade of cooling to even show that the theory was flawed...

But every time this theory gets the flaws pointed out a new justification comes up.

Yet you repeatedly make arguments that only deal with one variable. If you only look at one variable, it doesn't matter what the variable is, you'd probably conclude it's a poor correlation. Are you suggesting that the sun is a poor correlation too? Because I could make the same argument about the sun. Except I wont, because the sun actually correlates quite nicely if you account for all the variables we know of.

Well, the fact is that you haven't been able to PROVE that the correlation IS actually a 'CAUSAL' relationship, and actually, you're more or less conceding (without realizing it) that the theory of CO2 driving climate is actually completely off-base. The MINOR influence that CO2 CAN have when you consider the scale of the earth and what is all going on... we don't even understand ALL OF THE VARIABLES AT PLAY, NEVERMIND enough to conclude that CO2 alone plays anything of a significant role.

Cooling of the climate in some regions. Pay attention. Yes, actually, there are AGW proponents who believe this will happen. In fact, a grossly overblown and warped version of this theory was the basis for that movie The Day After Tomorrow. (the real effect would be just less warm water being circulated towards the UK and dropping its average temperature somewhat, not a massive superstorm that causes an ice age in the US)

Ya, and it's as much of a joke as in that movie to say that global warming is going to cause global cooling.

The jetstream IS mostly a result of pressure changes... and what do you suppose causes those pressure changes?

A wide variety of factors that can only really be projected a few days out... and considering the extent to which the jetstream can impact large portions of the earths temperatures, I fail to see the point you're trying to make here.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Then where does the heat come from with this "co2 induced warming" that's worthy of all the hype and fearmongering attached??

Either a theory makes sense or it doesn't.

The heat comes from the sun, of course.

Either that, or from the hot air being generated by attempting to refute a scientific theory based on thin air.

What you're arguing is much like saying that a dam is not the cause of a lake appearing where there once was a river, because the concrete in the dam doesn't produce water.

The reason the water is there is the dam.

No, no, the dam is made of concrete. Concrete doesn't produce any water, so that can't be the cause of the lake. Anyway, there's another lake over here that doesn't have a dam, so that proves that dams don't cause lakes.

 

[BmanMcfly]

So then I guess the earth should start cooling.

FT.com / US & Canada - US greenhouse gases drop to 15-year low

Here's a larger excerpt from this article...

Matthew Kennard
Financial Times
April 19, 2011

Greenhouse gas emissions in the US dropped to their lowest level in 15 years in 2009 as the impact of the financial crisis led to decreases in fuel and electricity consumption, according to newly published figures.

In 2009, the US saw its emissions of the six main greenhouses gases drop 6 per cent year-on-year to 6,633m metric tonnes, the lowest total since 1995. Despite that annual fall, emissions rose by more than 7.3 per cent between 1990 and 2009.

The figures, released by the Environmental Protection Agency, are likely to be seized upon by Republicans as evidence that there is no need for further regulation of carbon emissions. The GOP has embarked on a campaign in recent months to strip the EPA of its ability to regulate hydrocarbons as well as other pollutants.

A Republican-sponsored bill recently passed by the House has been viewed as a wide-ranging attack on the EPA. The proposed legislation argues that carbon dioxide was not mentioned in the Clean Air Act which gave the EPA legal authority to regulate air pollutants.

That's right, emissions increased but CO2 levels decreased. And word is the usual suspects had been trying to sell 2010 as the new hottest year on record.

 

[Deuce]

Here's a larger excerpt from this article...


That's right, emissions increased but CO2 levels decreased. And word is the usual suspects had been trying to sell 2010 as the new hottest year on record.

Unfortunately I can't seem to access the full article so I just have your except to go with. Too lazy to register.

CO2 emissions decreased, because the economy crashed and we consume less overall when that happens. People buy less stuff so less stuff gets produced by industry, people drive less, etc. Nowhere in that excerpt does it say that CO2 levels decreased. Does that come from some other part of the article? Once again you seem to be confusing a rate with an amount. The rate at which we emit CO2 dropped for the previously described reasons in that one year, however from 1990-2009 the total rate of emissions still did increase overall. CO2 levels have risen in that same period, naturall.

Ptif, you seem to be making the same mistake. Again. A rate is not a total amount. I know, the article title is written pretty bad, but reading comprehension people, c'mon!

 

[ptif219]

Unfortunately I can't seem to access the full article so I just have your except to go with. Too lazy to register.

CO2 emissions decreased, because the economy crashed and we consume less overall when that happens. People buy less stuff so less stuff gets produced by industry, people drive less, etc. Nowhere in that excerpt does it say that CO2 levels decreased. Does that come from some other part of the article? Once again you seem to be confusing a rate with an amount. The rate at which we emit CO2 dropped for the previously described reasons in that one year, however from 1990-2009 the total rate of emissions still did increase overall. CO2 levels have risen in that same period, naturall.

Ptif, you seem to be making the same mistake. Again. A rate is not a total amount. I know, the article title is written pretty bad, but reading comprehension people, c'mon!

From article

In 2009, the US saw its emissions of the six main greenhouses gases drop 6 per cent year-on-year to 6,633m metric tonnes, the lowest total since 1995. Despite that annual fall, emissions rose by more than 7.3 per cent between 1990 and 2009.

So are you saying CO2 is not one of the top 6?

Keep going Duece but I am waiting for your answer. Will this cause temp to decrease. I doubt because it will show the warming we have seen is natural not caused by man.

keep spinning the fact is the reduced greenhouse gas had no effect on the temp.

 

[Deuce]

From article

In 2009, the US saw its emissions of the six main greenhouses gases drop 6 per cent year-on-year to 6,633m metric tonnes, the lowest total since 1995. Despite that annual fall, emissions rose by more than 7.3 per cent between 1990 and 2009.

So are you saying CO2 is not one of the top 6?

Keep going Duece but I am waiting for your answer. Will this cause temp to decrease. I doubt because it will show the warming we have seen is natural not caused by man.

keep spinning the fact is the reduced greenhouse gas had no effect on the temp.

Again, ptif, a rate is not an amount.

In 2009 we emitted less CO2 than in 2008. That's not the same thing as CO2 levels in the atmosphere decreasing. They increased, but not as fast as they did before.


Pour water in a bucket for a bit quickly. Then slow down and pour it slowly. The water is still rising, just not as fast as when you poured quickly. That's what's happening here. CO2 levels still rose in 2009, just more slowly because the economy was crap and people drove less and bought less.

I never said CO2 was not one of the top 6 greenhouse gases, not sure where you got the idea that I said that.

edit: And to answer your question, no, this wouldn't cause a decrease in temperature.

 

[Deuce]

Then where does the heat come from with this "co2 induced warming" that's worthy of all the hype and fearmongering attached??

Either a theory makes sense or it doesn't

It makes sense to people who understand it. If you raise CO2 levels, more heat energy will be trapped and average air temperature will increase. I don't see why you're fixating on the source of the heat energy. Nobody actually cares what the source of the heat energy is, it's the rise in air temperature that is a potential problem. edit: In this context my use of the word "heat" is imprecise. Switched it to energy to be more clear.

The 'primary' factor... it's not even the primary greenhouse gas...

Depends on the context of "primary." Water vapor is the most abundant and is responsible for the largest portion of the total greenhouse effect, but it is not responsible for the largest change in the greenhouse effect.

Meanwhile EVERY projection they've made that I've seen has WAY overshot the actual results... the only sense in which it can be called 'accurate' is by giving themselves a HUGE margin for error, one that would take nearly a decade of cooling to even show that the theory was flawed...

Not true at all. Most of the claims attributed to scientists actually come from reporters.

Well, the fact is that you haven't been able to PROVE that the correlation IS actually a 'CAUSAL' relationship, and actually, you're more or less conceding (without realizing it) that the theory of CO2 driving climate is actually completely off-base. The MINOR influence that CO2 CAN have when you consider the scale of the earth and what is all going on... we don't even understand ALL OF THE VARIABLES AT PLAY, NEVERMIND enough to conclude that CO2 alone plays anything of a significant role.

I've shown you the causal relationship - basic electromagnetic physics.

Ya, and it's as much of a joke as in that movie to say that global warming is going to cause global cooling.

Regional cooling, for ****'s sake man read a little more carefully ok? I very specifically said regional cooling, not global. I even put it in italics. I can only assume you're just being outright dishonest here. Why do you keep doing this? Why do you keep deliberately attacking arguments I didn't make and attributing those arguments to me?

 

[Dittohead not!]

From article

In 2009, the US saw its emissions of the six main greenhouses gases drop 6 per cent year-on-year to 6,633m metric tonnes, the lowest total since 1995. Despite that annual fall, emissions rose by more than 7.3 per cent between 1990 and 2009.

So are you saying CO2 is not one of the top 6?

Keep going Duece but I am waiting for your answer. Will this cause temp to decrease. I doubt because it will show the warming we have seen is natural not caused by man.

keep spinning the fact is the reduced greenhouse gas had no effect on the temp.

I already debunked this one here.

No use repeating myself, is there?

 

[ptif219]

Again, ptif, a rate is not an amount.

In 2009 we emitted less CO2 than in 2008. That's not the same thing as CO2 levels in the atmosphere decreasing. They increased, but not as fast as they did before.


Pour water in a bucket for a bit quickly. Then slow down and pour it slowly. The water is still rising, just not as fast as when you poured quickly. That's what's happening here. CO2 levels still rose in 2009, just more slowly because the economy was crap and people drove less and bought less.

I never said CO2 was not one of the top 6 greenhouse gases, not sure where you got the idea that I said that.

edit: And to answer your question, no, this wouldn't cause a decrease in temperature.

So I see we pollute less an you play it off because it does not fit your GW agenda. If the greenhouse gases cause warming and they are reduced the temp should drop.

The problem is the warming is natural. So if reducing pollution does not stop warming why all the hysteria and doom and gloom form GW scientist?

 

[ptif219]

I already debunked this one here.

No use repeating myself, is there?

You have debunked nothing

 

[Dittohead not!]

You have debunked nothing

A slowdown in the rate of increase does not mean a decrease. If only we could get Congress to understand that concept when "cutting spending", perhaps we could balance the budget.

 

[ptif219]

A slowdown in the rate of increase does not mean a decrease. If only we could get Congress to understand that concept when "cutting spending", perhaps we could balance the budget.

But it does mean less added so if greenhouse gases cause warming and the rate is decreased the warming should decrease

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

But it does mean less added so if greenhouse gases cause warming and the rate is decreased the warming should decrease

It means less added compared to what would be added if the rate of increase wasn't increasing.

There are still greenhouse gasses being added. So no, the warming shouldn't decrease.

 

[Catawba]

"The coastline in Arctic regions reacts to climate change with increased erosion and retreats by half a metre per year on average. This means substantial changes for Arctic ecosystems near the coast and the population living there.

A consortium of more than thirty scientists from ten countries, including researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association and from the Helmholtz Centre in Geesthacht, comes to this conclusion in two studies published in Estuaries and Coasts. They jointly investigated over 100,000 kilometres and thus a fourth of all Arctic coasts and their results have now been published for the first time.

The changes are particularly dramatic in the Laptev, East Siberian and Beaufort Seas, where coastal erosion rates reach more than 8 metres a year in some cases. Since around a third of the world's coasts are located in the Arctic permafrost, coastal erosion may affect enormous areas in future. In general Arctic coasts react more sensitively to global warming than coasts in the mid-latitudes. Up to now they have been protected against the eroding force of the waves by large sea ice areas. Due to the continuous decline in sea ice, this protection is jeopardised and we have to reckon with rapid changes in a situation that has remained stable for millennia."
Arctic coasts on the retreat

 

[Deuce]

So I see we pollute less an you play it off because it does not fit your GW agenda. If the greenhouse gases cause warming and they are reduced the temp should drop.

The problem is the warming is natural. So if reducing pollution does not stop warming why all the hysteria and doom and gloom form GW scientist?

Look, ptif, if you don't understand the difference between a rate and a total amount, there's not much I can do to help you understand this. Think back to the bucket. We're still pouring into the bucket, just a little slower, and only for one year. That's not going to stop the water from rising, is it?

Driving down the highway, you step on your brakes for a short time. You're still moving forward, right?

Our pollution is still going forward. Just slower. And only for one year, due to the economy. It's not spin, it's not playing it off, you just aren't understanding what I'm actually saying.

Bman made the same error, probably because you were posting something that supports his side so he didn't bother to think about it at all.

To reiterate one last time for you, you have the bolded part wrong. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have not decreased. They increased, but by 6% less than the year before.

 

[bleedxforyou]

I’m new to this, and I just read a couple pages back considering there are 85 pages plus an entire other thread…haha. But, I think despite whether people think global warming is a hoax or global warming exists, I think we can all agree that something is happening. In the past decade, the U.S. have experienced Hurricane Charley, Frances and Ivan in 2004, Hurricane Rita and Katrina, and the Evansville Tornado of November in 2005, the 2008 Tuesday tornado outbreak, the 2009 Samoa earthquake, the June 2010 Arkansas floods, and most recently, the California tsunami in 2011. Although, we can’t completely correlate the magnitude of these disasters to global warming, we can agree that it did happen and that we were unprepared for it. Instead of discussing whether or not global warming exists, we should look outside and realize that something is changing and something is different and take action. Cuba, for example, isn’t looking for another oil deposit or source of energy to fall on their laps…they have decreased their ecological footprint (ha per capita in 2000) to 1.53 while the U.S. is 9.57. With the combination of wind turbines, biomass, solar and water power, urban agriculture, and organic/small farms they have been able to create an energy revolution. We need to compromise our lifestyles and hope these changes suspend in order to transition into something simpler in case global warming does exist and we too reach peak oil and whatever other disaster comes out way.

 

[bus]

I've read here and there in both threads, and plenty of other reading on my own. This is my conclusion: Regardless of global warmings hoax, myth, reality or fact - will a greener outlook econimcally and physically boost society is my core question. If the answer is yes then we should pursue greener ideals. If the case turns out to be a big no, we really havent lost anything. As we are in the same boat then as now.

My core ideal is that the majority our energy in the United States is dependant on another country(ies) and that we should obtain an energy source that is not dependant upon another nation. Green alternatives are simply alternatives and they do not hurt us. Global Warming seems to be a hype that is overplayed in the role that it should be.

 

[bleedxforyou]

I agree with bus, that we should pursure greener ideals. Somebody once told me that you can either take one step in front of you or turn around behind you and take two steps forward. We have taken one step forward with our recent advances in technology and how lavishly we live our lives. From that step forward, we have caused the loss of habitats and species, have decreased habitat diversity, and have caused the average temperature to rise to 1.4 degrees farenheight. We caused the artic ice, glaciers and Snow Mountains to melt, coral reefs to die off, and increased wildfires, heat waves, and tropical storms. We haven't reached peak oil yet, but now, we have time to prepare for it. It may be difficult to prevent it now, but we can defer catastrophe and prepare for it by living more simply and sustainable as well as promote outreach and attention to our country’s potential. All we need to do is turn around and take another two steps in the right direction.

I think we would be losing more if we didn't try. In our current generation and future generations, we will only have made for advances in technologies, and become more intelligent in our fields that we will figure out new forms of renewable energy. To not do anything is an insult to our intelligence and our generation. It will provoke new scholars to stretch their minds and be innovating and creative and build more communities. I heard that our electricity potential in enormous. With wind power alone, in specific location across the Pacific Northwest, the electricity potential is 1.5 times the current electricity use. More and more solar products are becoming cost-friendly and have made significant increases efficiency. We should try looking to other countries for ideas for sources of renewable energy, like Cuba. They burn pig manure as energy as well as retrofitted many sugar mill cogenerations in order to turn sugar into bagasse for energy. Currently, their energy consumption is one eight of the U.S., so it is possible to use renewable energy to accommodate a country and it is possible to be more sustainable.

 

[hippytreehugger]

Dear Bleedxforyou,
It's amazing that such a small nation like Cuba is setting a good example for the rest of the world by prioritizing more sustainable practices and seeking out for renewable energy sources. You'd think that the U.S., one of the strongest and most powerful nation in the world would take greater responsibility with this matter. But we have become incredibly reliant on fossil fuels like petroleum, natural gas, and coal. These fuels are burned and the products of the reaction are gases that turn a motor. These greenhouse gases are what contribute to global warming. But there's another problem. These sources are limited and it won't be long until we run out. Thus, there's clearly a sense of urgency to find new renewable energy sources, as well making them more efficient. This flow chart I'll post shows how much energy (they use quads as the unit of energy) America uses. https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content...energy_flow_2009/LLNL_US_Energy_Flow_2009.png One thing that amazes me is the rejected energy of electricity generation and transportation. I think this is one problem we should focus on fixing. I do agree however that this problem is not just up to scientists and engineers. Everyone can do there part. If you can, ride your bike rather than drive. Don't keep any electrical devices on if they aren't being used. This is a global problem. And if everyone contributes to a sustainable community, and reduce their need for oil and electricity, the Earth will be a more habitable planet.

 

[bus]

These greenhouse gases are what contribute to global warming.

I still fail to see how Global Warming is a problem.

And if everyone contributes to a sustainable community, and reduce their need for oil and electricity, the Earth will be a more habitable planet.

As history has shown that is not true. Energy makes a more habitable planet.

 

[bleedxforyou]

I agree that we need to figure out a better way to capture all the rejected energy. Unfortunately, 100% efficiency does not exist; however, we can see that Natural gas, coal, and petroleum produces more rejected energy than renewables do. I agree that, that is where our focus should be. For the mean time, like you said, everybody can do their part. For example, in Cuba, most people are on bikes or large public buses that take them into the city or to work. In just two years the country was able to consume 34% less kerosene, 37% less LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) and 80% less gasoline. Cubans stopped cooking with kerosene and millions of appliances were replaced. Crops are grown organically or in small local farms, reducing pesticides and energy usage. Energy festivals are held yearly, where kids can enter their energy-efficient projects into community contests. These competitions motivate children at an early age to be concerned and to be aware of the importance of energy consumption. Newspapers print regularly about energy efficiency and there is a weekly television program dedicated to energy issues. Awareness, however, needs to start in the U.S. The rest of the world looks at the United States for leadership and all try to emulate the lifestyles of Americans, therefore, the U.S. should take advantage of this leadership to be more energy and environmentally conscious in order for the world to do the same.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I agree that we need to figure out a better way to capture all the rejected energy. Unfortunately, 100% efficiency does not exist; however, we can see that Natural gas, coal, and petroleum produces more rejected energy than renewables do. I agree that, that is where our focus should be. For the mean time, like you said, everybody can do their part. For example, in Cuba, most people are on bikes or large public buses that take them into the city or to work. In just two years the country was able to consume 34% less kerosene, 37% less LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) and 80% less gasoline. Cubans stopped cooking with kerosene and millions of appliances were replaced. Crops are grown organically or in small local farms, reducing pesticides and energy usage. Energy festivals are held yearly, where kids can enter their energy-efficient projects into community contests. These competitions motivate children at an early age to be concerned and to be aware of the importance of energy consumption. Newspapers print regularly about energy efficiency and there is a weekly television program dedicated to energy issues. Awareness, however, needs to start in the U.S. The rest of the world looks at the United States for leadership and all try to emulate the lifestyles of Americans, therefore, the U.S. should take advantage of this leadership to be more energy and environmentally conscious in order for the world to do the same.

Cuba uses less energy than the US not because of some government program or idealist philosophy, but because of extreme poverty brought on a combination of their failed economic system and a boycott by the government of the US. Lately, the U
S has been using less energy, too, due to our recession.

Now, we could adopt a Cuban economic system. That would put us also in extreme poverty and reduce greenhouse gasses and the demand for imported petroleum.

Somehow, that doesn't seem like a really great idea however.

 

[ptif219]

It means less added compared to what would be added if the rate of increase wasn't increasing.

There are still greenhouse gasses being added. So no, the warming shouldn't decrease.

Wrong if the main greenhouse gases slow that means less warming. If not then the greenhouse affect is a scam