brian0918 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) ... The fallaciousness of their reports ... That is a separate issue from the fallaciousness of solely discounting an argument based on its source. When you look on a very large scale our planet is approaching a cooling cycle. That doesn't answer my question. You used evidence from the last 2-3 years as evidence in the discussion, and I wanted to know how confidently you could do this - compare a couple years of data to a much larger set of data. Edited June 12, 2008 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Here's a link to get you started on understanding on why global warming is a concern, man made or not. See part IV. I can only conclude by your post that you have made some erroneous presumptions about what this whole thing is about. The "real empirical" is actually quite substantial. That paper you link to is authored by two scientists, one of whom is Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, a known commodity. He's the one that told Lindzen "you have no credentials", when, in fact, Lindzen is probably the foremost atmospheric scientists in America and maybe the world. Here is the introduction to that pdf you link to. Change (IPCC), which are compiled by thousands of scientists. This has been broken down before. There were not thousands of scientists who agreed with the GW claims. There is an article linked to in a thread here that breaks down the actual numbers and it amounts to a tiny number. Unfortunately, much of the American public remains unaware of this overwhelming scientific agreement. There is no evidence it exists. Sophia referenced a recent petition that bolsters this point. There are innumerable serious books on the market by top flight scientist who dispute the whole catastrophic global warming scare. Part of the blame for this lies with coordinated efforts within certain industries to spread misinformation about global warming. Anti-capitalism. This report is intended to provide a comprehensive discussion of common myths and misunderstandings regarding climate change. Our goal is to provide members of Congress and their staff, journalists and the public with detailed, well-researched and user-friendly information on these issues. This will allow readers to see that global warming science is not split between two opposing camps, as the public may often believe. I've read the opinions of so many atmospheric scientists and those in closely related fields who claim precisely the opposite. Our rebuttals of myths are based on peer-reviewed, widely accepted scientific publications, which are cited and listed at the end of the report. For a less technical summary of only the most common myths, see the executive summary.1 I'll look at this later, time permitting. In the mean time this is Carbon Belch Day! And I think I need to celebrate it in some way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Something just struck me about that pdf. It's put out by an organization called "Environmental Defense". That speaks to motivations, don't you think? It's an environmental organization, not a scientific organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) That is a separate issue from the fallaciousness of solely discounting an argument based on its source. You contintue to create strawman arguments here. I simply indicated that it is not a credible source and thus one should be very diligent in checking the validity of their claims (as some in the scientific community have been doing). Edited June 12, 2008 by ~Sophia~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 That doesn't answer my question. You used evidence from the last 2-3 years as evidence in the discussion, and I wanted to know how confidently you could do this - compare a couple years of data to a much larger set of data. I also said that the model used by IPCC for this projected warming has been discredited as not including all of the relevant components. Long term this projection also does not fit with data - see the youtube link I provided you with and short term - whatever warming they reported (which they claimed was a result of human activity in past 100 years) is also not factual. We have not stopped producing C02 in the last 2-3 years - so why would the effect be gone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Something just struck me about that pdf. It's put out by an organization called "Environmental Defense". That speaks to motivations, don't you think? It's an environmental organization, not a scientific organization. According to www.sourcewatch.org: "Environmental Defense (previously known as the Environmental Defense Fund) is a US-based Environmental organization. It describes itself as being "dedicated to protecting the environmental rights of all people, including future generations. Among these rights are clean air and water, healthy and nourishing food, and a flourishing ecosystem." Now we have "environmental rights"....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Whoops, folks. I messed up. TOMORROW is the day I'll be driving my gas-guzzling truck to take a load of trash (largely STYROFOAM and other petrochemical-based carbon compounds) to the dump and pick up a WOOD BURNING stove. I missed Carbon Belch day for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 On how large a scale and under what environmental conditions is this statement valid, and how has its validity been related to the global biosphere? See this tread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I also said that the model used by IPCC for this projected warming has been discredited as not including all of the relevant components. Long term this projection also does not fit with data - see the youtube link I provided you with and short term - whatever warming they reported (which they claimed was a result of human activity in past 100 years) is also not factual. We have not stopped producing C02 in the last 2-3 years - so why would the effect be gone? You're still ignoring the difference in scope. They presented evidence over a long-term scale. You can discredit that evidence on its own merits, or present other long-term evidence that contradicts their conclusions. What you cannot reasonably do is present evidence from a very short-term scale as evidence against a conclusion derived from long-term evidence, for the reasons I originally stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) You're still ignoring the difference in scope. They presented evidence over a long-term scale. You can discredit that evidence on its own merits, or present other long-term evidence that contradicts their conclusions. What you cannot reasonably do is present evidence from a very short-term scale as evidence against a conclusion derived from long-term evidence, for the reasons I originally stated. That is not what I am doing. The claim has been that past 100 years of human activity produced 0.6 C increase in global temperature. Since human activity has not stopped, in fact C02 emissions are increasing - why would the effect be gone, why would the temperature drop instead of rise? If the cause is there, if that is in fact the driving component - the effect should be there as well. Do you mean to suggest that this effect can be gone for few years and then re-appear and then gone and re-appear? What are you saying? ---------------- There is a constant exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans. Gas is dissolved and also released into the atmosphere. The balance is determined largely by temperature. You can see this effect for yourself. Open a bottle of carbonated water or soda. Pour some into each of two glasses. Put one in the refrigerator and leave one at room temperature. Come back in about an hour and take a drink from each. The one in the refrigerator has retained more bubbles. The fluctuations in CO2 level in the atmosphere are part of the carbon cycle, a complex process by which carbon moves between the atmosphere, biological organisms, the Earth’s crust, and the oceans. The drops in CO2 concentration do not always begin until after a cooling period has begun. Then, as an ice age is ending, the concentrations may remain low for some time into the warming period. This means that the CO2 changes cannot be the driving force in initiating these major climate shifts. But as the climate cools, the concentration of CO2 drops and this has a further cooling effect. And as the climate is warming, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, further increasing global temperatures. This is called a positive feedback loop. Look at the right side of the graph: Note that out of that 375 ppm C02 - 3.8 ppm is due to human activity. So you may ask why the level is so high.. let's look at a much larger scale (and this will help you understand that eventhough there is an interaction between C02 and temperature as explained above, C02 does not drive temperature changes of our planet): Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. Again - plant life evolved under much higher C02 concentrations. Higher than today levels are more optimal for plant life. I will repeat this again - human C02 addition to this - 3.8 ppm. This is the scope one must keep in mind. Edited June 12, 2008 by ~Sophia~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 (edited) Good source: by Jaworowski and another one by Beck which is particularly worth of attention because it brings something new to the picture. This paper shows that chemical CO2 gas analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend compared to ice core data. From 1829 the concentration of carbon dioxide of air in the northern hemisphere fell down from a value of e.g. 400 ppm up to 1900 to less than 300 ppm rising till 1942 to more than 400 ppm. After that maximum it fell down to e.g. 350 ppm and rose again till 2006 to 380 ppm. This would indicate that there is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a variing CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2-concentration of 285 ppm (claimed by IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338 ppm. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening, has been known several times in the last 200 years, in the 20th century around 1942 and before 1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420 pmm in 1942. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical methods with a systematical error of maximal 3%. These results were ignored reconstructing the CO2 concentration of air in modern warm period. To reconstruct the modern CO2 concentration of air - icecores from Antarctica had been used. The presented reconstructions are obviously not accurate enough to show the several variations of carbon dioxide in northern hemisphere. Edited June 13, 2008 by ~Sophia~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 a great presentation of relevant data. (youtube - I encourage you to watch all 4 parts) Thanks for all of the links, especially this one. My dad will love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Sure, the number 3 is much lower than the number 100, but is that all you're going on when you decide that human CO2 emissions are not impacting? I would think one could only make that argument if the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to humans was immeasurable. Once again, I must point out that this is NOT a debate about global warming, but rather about Moose's erroneous, unscientific claims about the NON-greenhouse effects of CO2. In that context, Sophia's statement makes perfect sense as clearly showing that mankind does not even remotely threaten to increase CO2 concentrations to levels which would push out enough oxygen to make any difficulties from a breathing standpoint. As for his second claim that CO2 represents a "pollutant," I have yet to see any evidence in support of that claim. For all he knows, CO2 is like nitrogen - completely inert and harmless to man's breathing. He doesn't know that it is a "pollutant" at all, and yet he saw fit to claim that it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.