Another nail in the coffin for global warming

[X-ray]

[QUOTE=Akrasia;2124861] A debate on a politics website is not going to change anything.

You keep pretending that you're some kind of neutral 'undecided' observer, but you're clearly someone who believes that Anthroprogenic Global Warming is not real and have no interest in finding out the facts of the matter.
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Akrasia;2124861]


I am neutral, I dont believe in the theory and I dont believe it not to be true either. Either is possible. In my opinion is it totally possible that the planet is not going to warm over the next century with dreadful flooding climate change etc. Equally there appears to be climate change of some form occurring and human input is likely given amount of us about and the emormous impact we have on the enviroment.

I also think there is no actual agreement on what the theory is. Several times I have asked questions on here to define the theory and they are brushed aside.

When did we start adding the CO2 in dangerous quantities?
When did the warming start?

If you cannot answer these questions there is no theory, there is a vague idea that some about of CO2 might warm the planet. Thats not a scientific theory.

These are not trick questions. Define the theory. I dont think you can. If CO2 is already way above dangerous levels we would have to actively remove it rather than decrease the rate at which we are adding to it.
If warming has been happening for decades that would mean CO2 levels were warming the planet at much lower levels than they are at today, so if we returned to those levels(very difficult) we would still be warming?

What exactly are you advocating as a solution?

The debate is not over and it is not only for some self appointed group of scientists to decide. This is a political issue. I find the science surrounding this issue to be quasi religious/political at times and the proponents to be almost facists in their dismissal of those not agreeing with them.

What right have you to say the debate is over, I say it has not begun. The implications of returning the world to a pre WW2 level of economic growth are severe for many in the world. People in the third world want electricity, power and transport. Denying them that is a big decision, saying there is no time to discuss it after we had a binge of CO2 is a nonsense. These people either get simple engines and power sources or they live in poverty, they would be driving a hybrid car around D4.

Even if the science behind this theory is good and there is a real concern here, it is also undoubtedly the case that many of those pushing the theory have a cult like attachment to it that is beyond logic. They will not tolerate anyone asking about it and even go as far as to say if the world now cools for 30 years we still have global warming. I mean honestly, how can anyone take this seriously?

There are plenty of enviromental problems that are totally ignored because of this theory. What if CO2 is not the driver of anything, if it is just a natural gas that is present in tiny amounts and has a minor role in our climate? You need to do a better job selling this thing if you think it is real, because there is no way if I was living in the dark in west africa I would not start up a generator on the basis of what I have read to date. You cannot force people to reduce their CO2 use, they need to want to, I am not that bothered at the moment.

[sharper]

If you cannot answer these questions there is no theory

The point that keeps getting made to you is that your questions are answered by science. You keep complaining about there being "no debate" but that's because you refuse to educate yourself on the theory you're critiquing. You claim to be "neutral" but you demonstrate a clear confirmation basis with regard to those sceptical of AGW.

You also don't seem to understand you can't just demand something be explained to you and that if others refuse to do so that means you "win". If you present some sort of argument backed by some sort of evidence many on here will be more than happy to engage you on it.

In the meantime if you spent a fraction of the time researching the topic as you do posting the same basic questions over and over then you'd already know the answers to them. All you're doing is showing that climate change sceptics have no clue of even the basics of science (and if you think Mars is experiencing a "warming trend" then that says a lot more than any degree you claim to have).

So in short, if you want a debate then great. Educate yourself on the topic and then you can debate it.

[Akrasia]

[quote=X-ray;2127557][QUOTE=Akrasia;2124861] A debate on a politics website is not going to change anything.

You keep pretending that you're some kind of neutral 'undecided' observer, but you're clearly someone who believes that Anthroprogenic Global Warming is not real and have no interest in finding out the facts of the matter.
[QUOTE]

When did we start adding the CO2 in dangerous quantities?
When did the warming start?

We started adding CO2 at the beginning of the industrial revolution, but the effects began to accumulate and accelerate over the course of the 20th century for several different reasons. The growth of internal combustion engine transport and the reduction in the associated levels of particulate pollution (through clean burning technology which reduced the global dimming effect that was masking the warming of the greenhouse effect by reflecting some extra light out to space)

If you look at the graphs, you can see that the rate of increase in global temperature is accelerating as positive feedbacks enter the system. Increases in CO2 concentrations started about 200 years ago and since 1800 have increased by about 30%

If you cannot answer these questions there is no theory, there is a vague idea that some about of CO2 might warm the planet. Thats not a scientific theory.

These questions have all been answered countless times in various sources on the internet, you can take your pick of dense scientific reports, or summaries intended for general information.

These are not trick questions. Define the theory. I dont think you can. If CO2 is already way above dangerous levels we would have to actively remove it rather than decrease the rate at which we are adding to it.

Increases in CO2 concentrations commit us to increases in temperatures. We can deal with relatively small increases (and those are inevitable at the moment, but what desperately need to avoid are very large increases in temperatures over a short period of time because that is nothing less than armageddon. The Business as Usual approach sees us hit these catastrophic levels of warming within 100 years (at conservative estimates). If we reduce our pollution, it buys us more time and eventually, the excess carbon we have emitted will be filtered out of the atmosphere through natural processes. The serious risk is if we reach one of several potential tipping points, at which point, nature will start to emit vast quantities of greenhouse gasses by itself and reducing human pollution would no longer have any effect.

If warming has been happening for decades that would mean CO2 levels were warming the planet at much lower levels than they are at today, so if we returned to those levels(very difficult) we would still be warming?

no, all else being equal, if we reduced CO2 significantly (lets say to 1950s levels) we would see a cooling effect on the climate. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere functions like a blanket, trapping heat. If the blanket is thicker, it traps more heat, if you remove a layer of a blanket, you will cool down.
Of course, reducing our emissions will only have an effect if we act before it's too late, before we reach a tipping point.

What exactly are you advocating as a solution?

Significantly reduce carbon emissions. This calls for a change to our consumerist lifestyle which is extraordinarily wasteful.

The debate is not over and it is not only for some self appointed group of scientists to decide. This is a political issue. I find the science surrounding this issue to be quasi religious/political at times and the proponents to be almost facists in their dismissal of those not agreeing with them.

No, it is a scientific issue. Playing politics with this issue is what is very likely to result in inaction and paralysis.
The environment doesn't care whether or not people believe they have the 'right' to consume wastefully, If we alter the balance of nature, there will be consequences. (Calling climate change a purely political issue is a bit like passing a law forbidding earthquakes instead of designing buildings and infrastructure to deal with them when they occur)

What right have you to say the debate is over, I say it has not begun.

Just because you were not paying attention doesn't mean we should all wait for you to catch up.

The implications of returning the world to a pre WW2 level of economic growth are severe for many in the world. People in the third world want electricity, power and transport. Denying them that is a big decision

These things are already denied to the majority of the worlds population by the economic system that allows some in the west to live in luxury to be self indulgent, wasteful to an extent that is quite sickening when we look at how little the majority of the worlds population have to survive.

Dealing with global poverty is a political issue. There is no reason at all to believe that we would tackle global poverty if it wasn't for the green movement stopping the lovely capitalists from helping them. Climate change will have a disasterous effect on the worlds poor. We caused the mess, it is quite disgusting that the deniers are feigning concern for people the majority of them would never usually give a second thought

Even if the science behind this theory is good and there is a real concern here, it is also undoubtedly the case that many of those pushing the theory have a cult like attachment to it that is beyond logic. They will not tolerate anyone asking about it and even go as far as to say if the world now cools for 30 years we still have global warming. I mean honestly, how can anyone take this seriously?

If you look beyond the headlines on pseudo science websites then you'll see the reasoning behind their beliefs. Dismissing the science on the basis of a headline without even attempting to understand the mechanics of the argument is just juvenile

There are plenty of enviromental problems that are totally ignored because of this theory.

like what?

What if CO2 is not the driver of anything, if it is just a natural gas that is present in tiny amounts and has a minor role in our climate?

the greenhouse effect is established science. What ifery is not science.
What if the real threat is lizard people?

You need to do a better job selling this thing if you think it is real, because there is no way if I was living in the dark in west africa I would not start up a generator on the basis of what I have read to date. You cannot force people to reduce their CO2 use, they need to want to, I am not that bothered at the moment.

Thats a shame, but why are you looking to me to explain AGW? Do you need it spoonfed? Why not tak responsibility. Delete anything to do with alex jones from your favourites toolbar and go to the experts

[Gaothfar]

Thanks Akrasia. That's one to keep for future reference.
Any chance you could do the same for the history-deniers?

[Akrasia]

surfacestations dot org

Home

This site and it's owner is discussed here [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM"]YouTube - Watts Up With Watts?[/ame]

[X-ray]

[quote=Akrasia;2127924][quote=X-ray;2127557][QUOTE=Akrasia;2124861] A debate on a politics website is not going to change anything.

You keep pretending that you're some kind of neutral 'undecided' observer, but you're clearly someone who believes that Anthroprogenic Global Warming is not real and have no interest in finding out the facts of the matter.

We started adding CO2 at the beginning of the industrial revolution, but the effects began to accumulate and accelerate over the course of the 20th century for several different reasons. The growth of internal combustion engine transport and the reduction in the associated levels of particulate pollution (through clean burning technology which reduced the global dimming effect that was masking the warming of the greenhouse effect by reflecting some extra light out to space)

If you look at the graphs, you can see that the rate of increase in global temperature is accelerating as positive feedbacks enter the system. Increases in CO2 concentrations started about 200 years ago and since 1800 have increased by about 30%




These questions have all been answered countless times in various sources on the internet, you can take your pick of dense scientific reports, or summaries intended for general information.


Increases in CO2 concentrations commit us to increases in temperatures. We can deal with relatively small increases (and those are inevitable at the moment, but what desperately need to avoid are very large increases in temperatures over a short period of time because that is nothing less than armageddon. The Business as Usual approach sees us hit these catastrophic levels of warming within 100 years (at conservative estimates). If we reduce our pollution, it buys us more time and eventually, the excess carbon we have emitted will be filtered out of the atmosphere through natural processes. The serious risk is if we reach one of several potential tipping points, at which point, nature will start to emit vast quantities of greenhouse gasses by itself and reducing human pollution would no longer have any effect.

no, all else being equal, if we reduced CO2 significantly (lets say to 1950s levels) we would see a cooling effect on the climate. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere functions like a blanket, trapping heat. If the blanket is thicker, it traps more heat, if you remove a layer of a blanket, you will cool down.
Of course, reducing our emissions will only have an effect if we act before it's too late, before we reach a tipping point.



Significantly reduce carbon emissions. This calls for a change to our consumerist lifestyle which is extraordinarily wasteful.


No, it is a scientific issue. Playing politics with this issue is what is very likely to result in inaction and paralysis.
The environment doesn't care whether or not people believe they have the 'right' to consume wastefully, If we alter the balance of nature, there will be consequences. (Calling climate change a purely political issue is a bit like passing a law forbidding earthquakes instead of designing buildings and infrastructure to deal with them when they occur)


Just because you were not paying attention doesn't mean we should all wait for you to catch up.
These things are already denied to the majority of the worlds population by the economic system that allows some in the west to live in luxury to be self indulgent, wasteful to an extent that is quite sickening when we look at how little the majority of the worlds population have to survive.

Dealing with global poverty is a political issue. There is no reason at all to believe that we would tackle global poverty if it wasn't for the green movement stopping the lovely capitalists from helping them. Climate change will have a disasterous effect on the worlds poor. We caused the mess, it is quite disgusting that the deniers are feigning concern for people the majority of them would never usually give a second thought

If you look beyond the headlines on pseudo science websites then you'll see the reasoning behind their beliefs. Dismissing the science on the basis of a headline without even attempting to understand the mechanics of the argument is just juvenile

like what?
the greenhouse effect is established science. What ifery is not science.
What if the real threat is lizard people?

Thats a shame, but why are you looking to me to explain AGW? Do you need it spoonfed? Why not tak responsibility. Delete anything to do with alex jones from your favourites toolbar and go to the experts

Thanks, that is a useful post. I still dont get how if the levels we were pumping out in 1950 caused warming then they would not continue to cause a problem if we reduce to that level? Although a smaller problem. Surely 1950s level would not result in cooling, but a reduced rate of increase in temp?

If that is that case surely we need more than nature to remove the 30% CO2 that has built up?

[X-ray]

The point that keeps getting made to you is that your questions are answered by science. You keep complaining about there being "no debate" but that's because you refuse to educate yourself on the theory you're critiquing. You claim to be "neutral" but you demonstrate a clear confirmation basis with regard to those sceptical of AGW.

You also don't seem to understand you can't just demand something be explained to you and that if others refuse to do so that means you "win". If you present some sort of argument backed by some sort of evidence many on here will be more than happy to engage you on it.

In the meantime if you spent a fraction of the time researching the topic as you do posting the same basic questions over and over then you'd already know the answers to them. All you're doing is showing that climate change sceptics have no clue of even the basics of science (and if you think Mars is experiencing a "warming trend" then that says a lot more than any degree you claim to have).

So in short, if you want a debate then great. Educate yourself on the topic and then you can debate it.

Look only I can tell you if my questions are answered, and they are not. I am probably in a minority in that I could actually give a sh1t to try finding out.

[sharper]

Look only I can tell you if my questions are answered,

Well exactly which is why "asking questions" is not a form of debate. The standard of evidence is defined entirely by you and the level of effort required to answer them is enormous compared your ability to declare the answers as still not satisfactory. That's why I invite you to inform yourself on the topic and then present arguments backed by evidence.

Akrasia went to a lot of trouble above to answer your questions, here's hoping you have a substantive reply.

[Destiny's Soldier]

Look at CO2 in 1940 higher than it is today.






Look at the hard documented history the IPCC ignored.


This one is rather damning. 64,000 chemical test of the air (120/day for 2 years).
Look at the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere -sometimes a 100ppm more than it is today. It has been demonstrated that the max error from influence from factories would have been 20 - 70ppm. Therefore making CO2 much higher than today.

So why accept Antarctic Ice cores when there are least 20 different chemical processes which consume CO2 in Ice?

We are witnessing a falisfied history from Akrasia. A spouter of mass deception upon the public.

[sharper]

Destiny's Soldier, I assume you're aware that Nitrogen and Oxygen are not greenhouse gasses. It's therefore highly disingenuous to describe carbon as a proportion of gasses which have no greenhouse effect when discussing the greenhouse effect.

As for your contention that CO2 was higher in the 1940s I'm sure you're also aware that measuring CO2 concentrations is non-trivial and is subject to large seasonal variations hence the mechanisms of measuring it from decades ago are not reliable:

Rabett Run

Further, Beck is seriously overoptimistic about the accuracy and precision of the methods used before CD Keeling's introduction of the IR absorption method to quantify CO2 in the atmosphere. The best of the older methods in the 1950s could barely discern the seasonal cycle. Keeling's method, on the other hand did so easily with an accuracy of better than 1 ppm.

Finally Beck (together with many of his sources) is seriously mislead about what constitutes an isolated observation site for CO2 measurements. Keeling found that even in La Jolla, on the US West Coast, if the wind was blowing from LA there were problems. Essentially all of Beck's sources made measurements in Europe, including such rural and isolated areas as Vienna, Kopenhagen, Paris, Rostock, Dieppe, Bern, Hamburg, etc.

And if you measure in those rural spots that is what you get. You also observe a huge variabilty between measurements which is characteristic of situations where air pockets from urban areas are floating by. Because he is pushing this particular peanut up Warwick Hughes' hill, Beck misses probably the most important of CD Keeling's contributions. True, his spotting that CO2 mixing ratios could be much more accurately measured by IR absorption was major, but even more important was the long series of measurements he made during the 50s and 60s in California, the Western US, Hawaii and Antarctica which made absolutely clear that there were only a few places on earth where one could measure CO2 without local interferences. that also explains why most of the measuring stations in the current CO2 network are mid Pacific.

So in short the measurements you're talking about are extremely unreliable but they appear to say something contrary to the scientific consensus so naturally you accept it totally.