Jump to content

Who here is a global warming skeptic?


Recommended Posts

 

You are misunderstanding something here. Scientific research is not based on sides. Rather, the researches ask the question such as, "if I take this model and use that data, what factors have have the strongest explanatory power on the observed increased in temperatures". There will be various approaches that may yield slight differences. If you have a vast body of contradicting results, you would posit that there is something else that we do not know. If most approaches (and remember, in order to publish you cannot just do the same, you will have some differences in your approach), highlight the same results then at this point quantity does tell you something.

Note that even those that diverge can be of interest, as by e.g. analyzing the model or general methodology one could be able to figure out whether there is something else or whether the methods have less explanatory power. Both aspects could be interesting, even if it just tells you why you do not get stable results.

No proper scientist will start off with to prove that warming is anthropogenic (or disprove it for that matter).

That actually is what I am telling iNow.

What do you see as the primary gap in evidence preventing you from accepting the same conclusion experts in the field have arrived upon, specifically:

 

Since the Industrial Era began, humans have had an increasing effect on climate, particularly by adding billions of tons of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Most of the observed warming since the mid-20th century is due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

Whether I see a primary gap is not of relevance to my point. You keep assuming that I am denying the existence of climate change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 942
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data ga

Lots of things.   I am pretty well convinced that there is a problem with CO2 levels and decreasing Ph of the oceans. This could be serious indeed.   I am also convinced, based on isotope abundan

Can you please post some kind of evidence - preferably new evidence - which made you come to this conclusion? And FOX News does not count. Instead of forcing the climate sciences to "prove" that clim

Posted Images

You keep assuming that I am denying the existence of climate change.

 

Not the existence of the change, just the primary driver and cause, and it's not an assumption. You've said as much yourself, and you've done so repeatedly:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78633-geological-activity-causing-climate-change-split-from-reasons-not-to-worry/page-2#entry767047

there are many factors involved within Climate Change. Volcanic eruptions, the change in the environment, whether human or natural changes involved. Simply to make a claim based off of even this amount of data is hard to make a conclusion or a closed link between human activity and Earth's so-called impending doom without change of habit.

 

I agree that over time the Earth changes due to the differences of habitat changes, again whether caused by animals or humans, but simply to put it on humans to be the all-ending cause needs more evidence.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78633-geological-activity-causing-climate-change-split-from-reasons-not-to-worry/page-2#entry767180

it takes much more to make a full conclusion on a controversial area such as climate change. Continuous scientific study is required. In fact, it would take much time to make a full conclusion on the Earth's natural cycle of climate in order to make a full conclusion on Earth natural cycles.

 

Both arguments require more time to analyze.

<...>

While address of global warming occurred in the 1950's, more scientific analysis of it began after 1992. Since it is 2013, this means that it has only been 21 years since the hypothesis of global warming has been analyzed. It will probably take way more years to have a complete understanding of Earth's ecosystem and the effects of humans on the natural environment

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-10#entry786128

I am not denying global warming(or climate change, however it is said). I admit that humans, like any other species, affects the environment it is in. However, I don't just see it as it being completely caused by humans. I feel there are other factors involved. <...> If the Earth is getting warmer, this means that there will be a larger separation between temperatures during times of the year when it gets warmer and cooler. This leads to a larger instability in weather around the world.

 

Is this completely attributed to human activity? I think there is more to the answer than just "Yes."

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78633-geological-activity-causing-climate-change-split-from-reasons-not-to-worry/page-3#entry767233

I am not denying that climate change exists. I am simply stating that the supposed evil human species is not the main cause of "global warming."

A quick search of the site shows several more comments from you in this same spirit, so I ask again... What do you see as the primary gap in evidence preventing you from accepting the same conclusion experts in the field have Themselves independently arrived upon, specifically:

 

Since the Industrial Era began, humans have had an increasing effect on climate, particularly by adding billions of tons of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Most of the observed warming since the mid-20th century is due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

 

There are more than 14,000 peer reviewed scientific articles on this subject that support this same conclusion. What more evidence do you believe is required before you are convinced?

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the existence of the change, just the primary driver and cause, and it's not an assumption. You've said as much yourself, and you've done so repeatedly:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78633-geological-activity-causing-climate-change-split-from-reasons-not-to-worry/page-2#entry767047

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78633-geological-activity-causing-climate-change-split-from-reasons-not-to-worry/page-2#entry767180

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-10#entry786128

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78633-geological-activity-causing-climate-change-split-from-reasons-not-to-worry/page-3#entry767233

A quick search of the site shows several more comments from you in this same spirit, so I ask again... What do you see as the primary gap in evidence preventing you from accepting the same conclusion experts in the field have Themselves independently arrived upon, specifically:

 

Since the Industrial Era began, humans have had an increasing effect on climate, particularly by adding billions of tons of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Most of the observed warming since the mid-20th century is due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

 

There are more than 14,000 peer reviewed scientific articles on this subject that support this same conclusion. What more evidence do you believe is required before you are convinced?

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

And how far back were these posts? Don't you ever consider that my views on the subject could change?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And have they?

From the evidence that has been presented, I would say climate change does have human influences, to much of the degree that it has been stated I am skeptical to a point on the issue.

 

EDIT: To be honest, this is sounding like Christian jabbing.

 

Christian: "So, are you a Christian?"

Person: "Well, I am a Protestant."

Christian: "SO YOUR A SATANIST!! ARRHHRHRHRHARHHAHR"

Person: "Wha..."

Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I will ask again, what do you see as the primary gaps in evidence preventing you from accepting the conclusion that experts in the field have themselves independently arrived upon?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I will ask again, what do you see as the primary gaps in evidence preventing you from accepting the conclusion that experts in the field have themselves independently arrived upon?

For me to answer the question, what conclusions are you specifically talking about? If already presented, link the post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

The role of human activity

 

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

 

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

 

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

For what reason was there a minority of climate scientists who disagreed?

 

 

 

  • Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

And here is an excerpt from Skeptical Science:

 

 

Volcanoes can--and do--influence the global climate over time periods of a few years but this is achieved through the injection of sulfate aerosols into the high reaches of theatmosphere during the very large volcanic eruptions that occur sporadically each century.

 

 

The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.

Now, I don't know if anyone feels the same way, this is quite a broad estimate that should be clarified. Do you think they have a chart that shows the comparisons or the data that shows that the amount is as they state?

 

EDIT: I have a source that has a completely different view on the issue:

 

 

 

Human sources of carbon dioxide are much smaller than natural emissions but they upset the balance in the carbon cycle that existed before the Industrial Revolution. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by natural sources is completely offset by natural carbon sinks and has been for thousands of years. Before the influence of humans, carbon dioxide levels were quite steady because of this natural balance.

http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-sources

 

 

 

Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P.M. Cox, R.E. Dickinson, D. Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U. Lohmann, S Ramachandran, P.L. da Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy and X. Zhang. Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2007.
Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

For what reason was there a minority of climate scientists who disagreed?

It's because climate scientists who agree that the anthropogenic explanation is most parsimonious and is the best fit with the evidence represent an overwhelming majority of climate scientists overall. Consequently, those who disagree are a minority. That's just basic math. As for why they disagree, you'd have to ask them.

 

Do you think they have a chart that shows the comparisons or the data that shows that the amount is as they state?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.VE3CDJiCOK0

Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust (see Wipeout). But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes (see also Did the North Atlantic's 'birth' warm the world?).

 

Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document).

http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2011/06/scienceshot-volcano-co2-emissions-no-match-human-activity

A popular myth among climate change skeptics is that volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide dwarf those generated by humans. But a new report in today's issue of Eos reveals precisely the opposite: In a mere 2 to 5 days, smokestacks, tailpipes, and other human sources of CO2 spew a year's worth of volcanic emissions of that greenhouse gas.

 

According to the paper, five recent studies suggest that volcanoes worldwide (such as Alaska's Shishaldin, shown) emit, on average, between 130 million and 440 million metric tons of CO2 each year. But in 2010, anthropogenic emissions of the planet-warming gas were estimated to be a whopping 35 billion metric tons. Individual eventssuch as Mount Pinatubo, whose major eruption in 1991 lasted about 9 hourscan produce CO 2 at the same rate that humans do, but they do so only for short periods of time.

 

It would take more than 700 Mount Pinatubo-sized eruptions over the course of a year to emit as much carbon dioxide as people do, the study notes.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", referring to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Mörner and Etiope (2002)).

 

In contrast, humans are currently emitting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo, El Chicon and Agung had little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

 

CO2_vs_Volcano.gif

 

The Mount Pinatubo eruption emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2 (Gerlach et al 1996). Compare this to human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2 (CDIAC). The strongest eruption over the last half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Do the Earths volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, No. Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the worlds degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

 

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

 

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earths subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscapethe equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoesto scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

 

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because climate scientists who agree that the anthropogenic explanation is most parsimonious and is the best fit with the evidence represent an overwhelming majority of climate scientists overall. Consequently, those who disagree are a minority. That's just basic math. As for why they disagree, you'd have to ask them.

 

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.VE3CDJiCOK0

http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2011/06/scienceshot-volcano-co2-emissions-no-match-human-activity

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

You haven't addressed my other source.

 

Also, so you are admitting that you making an assumption about the minority that do disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it nonsensical? Can you explain why?

 

It is nonsense to claim that something which happened in May (which is before any event in October) happened between two events that both happened in October.

Did you really need me to explain that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nonsense to claim that something which happened in May (which is before any event in October) happened between two events that both happened in October.

Did you really need me to explain that?

51ac0906b11d3497e492a3f24feba2d18988a4dc

 

Why are we getting hostile here? I am simply trying to start a discussion between the skeptics and the other side of the debate.

 

Somehow asking questions is offensive to people. I swear, entering topics like this one is a mine field.

 

I interpreted that what happened in May affected the issue of the event of what happened between two dates in October, which is not implausible.

Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

I am temporarily locking this thread. You guys are able to post so many rule violations so quickly that we (moderators) need a little time to evaluate this. Please be patient.

 

In the meantime, please read our rules, and ask yourself which you have violated in this thread or any other.

 

Thread temporarily locked.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

The thread, or rather, the last part of it, was reviewed, and I am glad to say that while you're all seem to be bickering and seem completely stuck in your trenches, there were few obvious personal attacks and logical fallacies (although I admit that I may have missed some - this thread is long!).

 

A few comments:

  • I warn people to stay on topic. Even small jabs and comments that are off topic can derail this thread easily. Just don't do it.
  • Stating an opinion is not against the rules (but also does not add any useful information). The FAQ has a comment on this (#10).
  • Responding to opinions is equally useless as stating one.
  • Responding to any off-topic comments is also off-topic.

The thread is open again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't addressed my other source.

I'm going to need you to please clarify specifically what you want me to address.

 

Is it this comment? >> "Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans."

 

If so, then I suggest I already have addressed it with my four previous citations, one of which was to the US Geological Survey which explicitly shared:

 

Do the Earths volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, No. Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the worlds degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

 

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

Now, perhaps you are moving past volcanoes and instead to ALL natural sources. If so, then that too is an easy enough argument to address since the change we are experiencing is related to the INCREASE in emissions that have thrown the system out of balance and not about the net total of natural emissions being higher than the net total of human emissions.

 

This seemed clear in your own source, as you even quoted it yourself, but here is another:

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

Human activities are altering the carbon cycleboth by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

 

Carbon dioxide is constantly being exchanged among the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface as it is both produced and absorbed by many microorganisms, plants, and animals. However, emissions and removal of CO2 by these natural processes tend to balance. Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere.

Also aligning with YOUR own source is this from the one you so frequently chastise as being activistic and biased despite their robust citations for every claim made:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

 

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

 

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

So, maybe I got sloppy or lazy with my language earlier in the thread, but frankly I took the point to be such a well established fact that it didn't require explanation.

 

Here it is again, this time more precisely: While net natural CO2 emissions are higher overall than net human contributions, those natural emissions have been balanced for hundreds of millions of years and what's relevant here in our discussion is the INCREASE in emissions and the source for those. As all available evidence makes explicitly clear, that increase is driven directly by human behavior and that increase due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is rather clearly what is driving the accelerated warming trend we're currently experiencing in our climate.

 

Are we on the same page now, or do you still feel there is something left for me to address as pertains to accepting the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community on this subject?

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to need you to please clarify specifically what you want me to address.

 

Is it this comment? >> "Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans."

 

If so, then I suggest I already have addressed it with my four previous citations, one of which was to the US Geological Survey which explicitly shared:

 

Now, perhaps you are moving past volcanoes and instead to ALL natural sources. If so, then that too is an easy enough argument to address since the change we are experiencing is related to the INCREASE in emissions that have thrown the system out of balance and not about the net total of natural emissions being higher than the net total of human emissions.

 

This seemed clear in your own source, as you even quoted it yourself, but here is another:

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

Also aligning with YOUR own source is this from the one you so frequently chastise as being activistic and biased despite their robust citations for every claim made:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

So, maybe I got sloppy or lazy with my language earlier in the thread, but frankly I took the point to be such a well established fact that it didn't require explanation.

 

Here it is again, this time more precisely: While net natural CO2 emissions are higher overall than net human contributions, those natural emissions have been balanced for hundreds of millions of years and what's relevant here in our discussion is the INCREASE in emissions and the source for those. As all available evidence makes explicitly clear, that increase is driven directly by human behavior and that increase due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is rather clearly what is driving the accelerated warming trend we're currently experiencing in our climate.

 

Are we on the same page now, or do you still feel there is something left for me to address as pertains to accepting the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community on this subject?

But my interpretation of your argument was that human activities result in far greater CO2 emissions than all natural causes. This is where my confusion was. This is where explanation would and should have been necessary.

 

The question I now have is why would human influences upset the balance in such a drastic away over a long period of time? It would be expected that during the Industrial Revolution, with the amount of CO2 emissions, that there were rapid climate effects. However, over longer periods of time when an equilibrium is met with the same amount(with some differences) of CO2 emissions are being put into the atmosphere, wouldn't there be an equilibrium within the climate made?

 

I am somewhat on the same page, still feeling a bit quirky about the evidence.

 

Another question I have is about the consumption of CO2 by vegetation. Shouldn't we be seeing vegetation that was not apparent that may consume more CO2 than was available before? It has occurred where a particular element is added to an ecosystem and a new species was brought about. After a long period of time, I would think this type of vegetation would start showing up, unless I am wrong about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But my interpretation of your argument was that human activities result in far greater CO2 emissions than all natural causes. This is where my confusion was. This is where explanation would and should have been necessary.

 

The question I now have is why would human influences upset the balance in such a drastic away over a long period of time? It would be expected that during the Industrial Revolution, with the amount of CO2 emissions, that there were rapid climate effects. However, over longer periods of time when an equilibrium is met with the same amount(with some differences) of CO2 emissions are being put into the atmosphere, wouldn't there be an equilibrium within the climate made?

 

I am somewhat on the same page, still feeling a bit quirky about the evidence.

 

 

There is no longer an equilibrium; CO2 levels are rising. More is being put into the atmosphere than is being removed. The variable here, with respect to a few hundred years ago and earlier, is human activity. IOW, not all of the amount of CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is being removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no longer an equilibrium; CO2 levels are rising. More is being put into the atmosphere than is being removed. The variable here, with respect to a few hundred years ago and earlier, is human activity. IOW, not all of the amount of CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is being removked.

Okay that makes sense. Now, the one question I still have deals with vegetation.

 

Edit: I apologize for being mentally slow on the subject. I have been busy with college work. :P

Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

But my interpretation of your argument was that human activities result in far greater CO2 emissions than all natural causes.

And this has since been clarified for you.

 

Summary on your question about plants: Plant growth is complex, and they need much more than just CO2 to thrive. There is also the issue of how the increased temperatures are negatively impacting their growth and yields, as are the more frequent drought conditions resulting from the climate change, but it varies depending on location and plant type. While some plants may ultimately adapt over time, we cannot know that and we must recognize that the issue is only exacerbated due to the extensive deforestation occurring in parallel with our CO2 increases.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=123798

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this has since been clarified for you.Summary on your question about plants: Plant growth is complex, and they need much more than just CO2 to thrive. There is also the issue of how the increased temperatures are negatively impacting their growth and yields, as are the more frequent drought conditions resulting from the climate change, but it varies depending on location and plant type. While some plants may ultimately adapt over time, we cannot know that and we must recognize that the issue is only exacerbated due to the extensive deforestation occurring in parallel with our CO2 increases.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.htmlhttp://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=123798http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htmhttp://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

I know, I was just saying where we got off on the wrong foot.

 

Before go on asking my next question, does the phenomena of climate change of warming occur globally? Or are there destabilizations in temprature variations?

 

I also found a graph that I have a question about.

 

http://www.scilogs.com/frontier_scientists/files/ArcticReport_AnnualTemperatures.jpg

Between the 1940s and 1980s, there is a slope downwards. Now, during these years there was an increase in production due to WWII. Is this explainable?

Edited by Unity+
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the phenomena of climate change of warming occur globally? Or are there destabilizations in temprature variations?

More here: https://www.climate.gov/maps-data

 

I also found a graph that I have a question about.

 

http://www.scilogs.com/frontier_scientists/files/ArcticReport_AnnualTemperatures.jpg

Between the 1940s and 1980s, there is a slope downwards. Now, during these years there was an increase in production due to WWII. Is this explainable?

Yes. Sulfate aerosols.

 

They scatter and reflect light from the sun so tend to have a short-term cooling effect when concentrations increase. Industrial and volcanic events caused these levels to increase in the mid-20th century, and this was only further magnified with the industrial activities that ramped up to support wartime activities in WWII. With that said, sulfate concentrations were largely curbed with the Clean Air Acts implemented in North America and Europe and consequently their cooling effects were quickly outweighed by the warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming.html

 

 

Note also that there seem to have been some sampling and instrument errors introduced during the 1940s. This implies that the sharp decline in temperatures you reference didn't actually occur. Basically, human error led to us under-represent the actual ocean temperatures: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Before go on asking my next question, does the phenomena of climate change of warming occur globally? Or are there destabilizations in temprature variations?

 

 

Change is global, but the changes are not uniform.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.