Climate "skeptics" vs climate scientists in a nutshell

[cypress]

Because, as I said, this is part of a positive feedback loop.

 

Yes, warming has to occur before permafrost melts. But when it does it puts more GHGs into the atmosphere and increases the amount of warming that occurs.

 

I understand the supposition, how do you demonstrate that permafrost sourced methane actually, in real definitive terms, contributes to positive feedback? Please provide a source that establishes clear evidence of positive feedback.

 

In cases like this, many species would go extinct, anad even our species would ahve a chance to go extinct (but it would be unlikely as we are highly adaptable omnivores), however, it is our society that would be most at risk from such changes (as I have said before).

 

Since natural processes historically have resulted in temperatures 4 or more times greater than the presumed human effect, shouldn't we be even more focused on stopping these natural effects?

[Incendia]

...*facepalm*...We should be in an iceage but human effects counteracted it...that's how we know this isn't from natural effects...

[FX]

[Edtharan]

I understand the supposition, how do you demonstrate that permafrost sourced methane actually, in real definitive terms, contributes to positive feedback? Please provide a source that establishes clear evidence of positive feedback.

I don't need a source. Meathane is a known GHG. If it is released into the atmosphere then it will increase the greenhouse effect. It is about 25 times more effective as a GHG than CO².

 

We know that plants are locked up in perma frost. We also know that if plants rot, they produce methane (if you have ever done composting you will likely know this).

 

So, if you melt permafrost, then the plants locked up inside them will rot and produce methane, thus increaseing the Green House effect.

 

Since natural processes historically have resulted in temperatures 4 or more times greater than the presumed human effect, shouldn't we be even more focused on stopping these natural effects?

And the Earth's surface was at one time thousands of degrees. That was in the past and this is now. What is important is what is occuring now. As many opponents to GW have stated, the temperature of the Earth ahs been higher in the past and these are all natural events. But they also point out that this event is different from the past to invalidate any historical data used to formulate forcasts of what might happen.

 

On one hand, they are using historical data, but then when it inconviniences them, they reject it. This is clearly cherry picking of data. It is sloppy thinking and a sign of a hidden agenda (otherwise how would you know what data to accept or reject if you didn't already have a goal in mind), even if that agenda is just to prevent change.

 

 

 

As for the whether we shoudl be foccued on stopping it if it is a natural event, I don't believe that this situation will be the end of life. Sure it might take a termprary hit, but in the end the impact will be insignificant. The main probelm is with us Humans and our civilization.

 

I don't think GW will be the extinction of humans. It (even if naturally caused) will be a significant event in civilization, and at an extreme case cause the collapse of civilization as we know it (but not the end of it).

 

The question is: Can we make a difference (and even if we can't should we try anyway).

 

If we can make a difference, then I believe we are under an obligation to do so (as in the obligation one has to their own family and to try and give them the best life you can).

 

It is this reason alone that I advocate measres to reduce global warming.

 

See, even if we are not the cause of GW, if we can reduce it, then we have an obligation (as per the familal obligation). If we are the cause of GW, then we have a responsability to do so along with the obligation.

 

So yes, even if it is not caused by humans, we have an obligation to our families to do so.

[kitkat]

Yes, this seems to be another way of acknowledging that since the climate's causal factors are not understood, we cannot accurately predict future patterns and thus the alarmists predictions of warmer temperatures of 2-6 degrees C are not credible.

 

 

Are you saying that the Permian Extinction of 2-6 degrees warmer didn't happen?

[Essay]

Edtharan, on 29 November 2010 - 09:11 AM, said:

"Because, as I said, this is part of a positive feedback loop.

Yes, warming has to occur before permafrost melts. But when it does it puts more GHGs into the atmosphere and increases the amount of warming that occurs."

~

So since the permafrost first had to melt and then decompose before methane could be released, how could methane be the cause of warming or even more rapid warming since the warming had already occurred?

 

Cypress, It is changes in solar insolation (from Milankovitch cycle) at 65 degrees N. latitude, which causes permafrost to begin melting... which begins the warming cycle of interglacials.

 

It is not a net "warming" which triggers glacial/permafrost melting, but just a change in the distribution of insolation.

===

 

Our current CO2 loading of the atmosphere completely overwhelms that natural forcer; so yes, we have prevented any future return to the "glaciation mode" until CO2 levels return to normal. This is good, but we are in danger of overcompensating the natural cooling forcers; to the point of causing Eocene (over 30 Mya) condition to predominate.

 

~

[JohnB]

we have prevented any future return to the "glaciation mode" until CO2 levels return to normal

 

You have a lot of faith in predictions for 20,000 years into the future. We weren't expecting glaciation to occur before then anyway.

 

This is good, but we are in danger of overcompensating the natural cooling forcers

 

Are we? The cooling forces seem to be far stronger than expected given the hiatus for more than a decade.

[superball]

Question, who said global warming only depends on co2 levels?

 

should we all agree that co2 level is the only determining factor?

 

should we be allowed to include other factors that would explain global warming, such as volcanic eruptions, and solar activity, etc?

 

I would like to add more factors to dispute co2 as the main cause for global warming if i am allowed to do so..

 

One more question, does a rise in co2 levels mean that an ice age is coming?

Edited November 16, 2011 by superball

[iNow]

Question, who said global warming only depends on co2 levels?

Nobody did. When did you stop beating your wife?

 

 

should we all agree that co2 level is the only determining factor?

That would be a poor decision.

 

 

should we be allowed to include other factors that would explain global warming, such as volcanic eruptions, and solar activity, etc?

Not only should we be allowed to, we already do.

 

 

I would like to add more factors to dispute co2 as the main cause for global warming if i am allowed to do so..

Good luck. Many have tried and failed. Odds are, you're no different, but you're certainly allowed to try.

[mooeypoo]

Nobody did. When did you stop beating your wife?

 

 

superball, what iNow means, here, is that your question is unfair in itself. It's a logical fallacy that is called a "Loaded Question", to which either answer is "wrong". read more here: http://www.fallacyfi...g/loadques.html

 

 

In this case above, if I answer that "I have (stopped)" I admit I beat my wife. If I answer "I haven't (stopped)" I say I am *still* beating my wife.

 

In either case the answer is some form of me beating my wife even if I don't.

The question itself assumes an answer that isn't necessarily true.

 

Your question, "who said global warming levels only depends on co2 levels? [sic]" you're phrasing a question that has no real answer; the question is the problem - no one said it because global warming levels do NOT 'only depend on co2 level'. That's not what scientists claim. The purpose of the 'return question' was not to offend you, but to make the same point.

 

 

 

That said, iNow, it would serve everyone well if you explain these things rather than 'beat back' with a return fallacy. This method doesn't really serve to explain the other person where (and why) you think he was wrong, it just makes him think you're being a jerk, which, granted, if he didn't know about the fallacy, it sounded like you are.

 

Be civil guys.

 

~mooey

[iNow]

I think my response was very civil. Your response was more clear, though, so thanks.

[superball]

I will elaborate.

 

The first post showed graphs that depicted co2 levels, all the graphs in fact.

 

It was also stated, Possibly the best attempt I've ever seen at this sort of thing:

 

The title also misleading.

 

Climate "skeptics" vs climate scientists in a nutshell

A valid response, the scientist in this case only show co2 levels. That is why I had asked the question.

 

who said co2 levels were the only determining factor.

 

Perhaps I can find the data required to include, adding other factors that are just as relevant.

 

Thank you for clearing up the wife beating, perhaps beating a dead horse is less insulting..

[mooeypoo]

I will elaborate.

 

The first post showed graphs that depicted co2 levels, all the graphs in fact.

 

It was also stated, Possibly the best attempt I've ever seen at this sort of thing:

 

The title also misleading.

 

Climate "skeptics" vs climate scientists in a nutshell

A valid response, the scientist in this case only show co2 levels. That is why I had asked the question.

 

who said co2 levels were the only determining factor.

 

Perhaps I can find the data required to include, adding other factors that are just as relevant.

 

Thank you for clearing up the wife beating, perhaps beating a dead horse is less insulting..

 

Your graphs don't say that the ONLY determining factor to global warming is CO2 levels.

Your question was invalid, and is still invalid.

 

Are you coming here with a conclusion you wish to fit the data to, or do you want to discuss what scientists *actually* say, and what facts they consider, or do you want to follow the entirety of the facts and draw a conclusion?

 

The first option, which it seems you take, does not fit with the scientific methodology. You should reconsider your strategy here.

 

~mooey

 

 

 

[superball]

Nice to meet you.

 

Thank you for showing me that I had posted a loaded question.

 

This is a touchy subject, and I will do my best not to post assumptions in the future.

 

Thanks again.