How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Terridon]

Okay, ignore the movie for a second.

Read that last link that I posted. Then, once you've read it, looked at the graphs, ect., come back here and give me your evidence that Humans are causing global warming and/or (I'll take either) defeat all of his points, one by one, using scientific evidence and consistent, logical, reasoning.

I'm tired, and not really in the mood for looking through your link, to find out where he's probably missing, or misinterpretting things.
Just wanted to clarify what i said in the last post, since you seemed to have missed that. I don't use him as an argument, and the only people that have brought Al Gore in, in this thread, has been people against the idea of climate changes, or human having any impact on it.

I'm pretty sure somebody more awake will pick up on your post
But yes. I don't think any here believe the movie to be a scientifical work in itself. People might tell you to watch it because it's easy to understand what's said in it.

[semaphore]

I'm tired, and not really in the mood for looking through your link, to find out where he's probably missing, or misinterpretting things.

By the looks of it you're not missing much. Just the typical denialism lies that has been debunked numerous times even in this thread.

[Terridon]

By the looks of it you're not missing much. Just the typical denialism lies that has been debunked numerous times even in this thread.

I had a suspicion. It has been a while ago i followed this subject, so it takes some work for me now, to find out what's right and wrong in those articles.
But happy that i can sleep with peace in mind, knowing that i'm not missing something important

[Vaengence]

You are apparently an expert and slapping a copy/paste on a post and claiming it as fact with no context and no evidence that you even understand the material. Your post should come with a disclaimer that the cut and paste is the opinion of a judge not a scientist and most of the "errors" are that he takes issue with the way in which they are presented not the validity of the claim itself.

Interesting that you left this little tidbit out of your cut and paste (empasis is mine):



From someone drumbeating about the lack of science in this thread you certainly do post a lot of non-scientific sources. And the ones you do don't even support your claims. The vast majority of scientists know that Al Gore's film is indeed factual. I agree that it leans heavily on emotion but Al Gore isn't a scientist and he is under no obligation to eliminate emotion or a sense of urgency from his film, only to make sure he gets his facts right. Which he does.

Posting this and trying to claim with any sincerity that it discredits the facts in An Inconvenient Truth shows you are sham and nothing you say is credible.

You asked for a list of errors in the film. I gave you a list of errors in the film. The source is a UK Court Judgment - and determined that there were errors in the film that were not supported by the science. You never asked whether or not the film was junk, or asked me to post why it was junk, or whether or not there was anything in the film scientifically valid. I did not post anything saying that the film as a whole was bad, or unscientific - you asked for a list of errors, I gave you a list of errors.

What was the purpose of the caterwauling?

[Grizzly Willy]

You asked for a list of errors in the film. I gave you a list of errors in the film. The source is a UK Court Judgment - and determined that there were errors in the film that were not supported by the science. You never asked whether or not the film was junk, or asked me to post why it was junk, or whether or not there was anything in the film scientifically valid. I did not post anything saying that the film as a whole was bad, or unscientific - you asked for a list of errors, I gave you a list of errors.

What was the purpose of the caterwauling?

The point was that there were parts that you left out that undermine your position.

[Renathras]

Fine, what's your scientific evidence and logical reasoning against the greenhouse effect resulting from human carbon emissions?

When did I say that Human carbon emissions don't cause a greenhouse effect?

What I'm questioning is the LEVEL of that effect.

Let me put it to you this way:

A fireman shoots a high capacity hose at a fire. A homeowner has a squirt gun and is shooting at the fire that causes an insignificant effect.
Who is putting out the fire?

.

From that link, the points I'd like you to counter:

"THE CURRENT WARM PERIOD IS NOT UNUSUAL

The graph below, based on reconstruction from the geologic and historical records, shows that there have been several warm/cold cycles since the end of the last glacial epoch. The temperature during the Holocene Climate Optimum was 3ºF to 10ºF warmer than today in many areas. This is warmer than the extreme scenarios of the IPCC. Clearly, current temperatures are neither unprecedented nor unusually warm."

There's an accompanying graph. I also posted another link with a temperature graph. In fact, go to google, type in global temperature geologic record and hit the image link and you can find PLENTY of images showing the temperature of the planet over time and that it has been much higher in the past than it is now, well before Humans were on the scene.

.

"But what about the ice core graphs?

<Note: There's a graph here in the article>

These show a correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide. But what isn’t usually mentioned is that temperature changes PRECEDED changes in CO2 concentration by about 800 years. That’s because temperature controls carbon dioxide solubility in the oceans. Notice that the temperature cycles occur in approximately 100,000-year intervals. This coincides with the precession of the Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun. (Can you think of anything that would make CO2 cycle this way if it were the driver rather than temperature?)"

And this is in line with what else I've read about - that the Sun drives the Earth's temperature (as well as that of Venus, Mars, and Jupiter, the latter two are also experiencing warming right now, and in the absence of Humans, I shouldn't need to point out.) And if the CO2 levels precede temperature changes, that defeats that argument that Human CO2 emissions are direct drivers of temperature change.

.

"Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect

The “greenhouse effect,” very simplified, is this: solar radiation penetrates the atmosphere and warms the surface of the earth. The earth’s surface radiates thermal energy (infrared radiation) back into space. Some of this radiation is absorbed and re-radiated back to the surface and into space by clouds, water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide, and other gases. Water vapor is the principle greenhouse gas; the others are minor players. Without the greenhouse effect the planet would be an iceball, about 34 C colder than it is. The term “greenhouse effect” with respect to the atmosphere is an unfortunate usage because it is misleading. The interior of a real greenhouse (or your automobile parked with windows closed and left in the sun) heats up because there is a physical barrier to convective heat loss. There is no such physical barrier in the atmosphere."

The full understanding is found in physics. Namely in a simplistic way of understanding how electrons jump levels and absorb and emit electro-magnetic radiation. The way it works is simple - each photon of light/EM radiation has a specific level of energy. The electron levels of a substance (elements or molecules) have exacting "spacing" (for lack of a better term) between electron levels. They will ONLY absorb energy that corresponds to a spacing between those levels.

To put it in an easier way to understand, suppose that planets could ONLY sit in the orbits of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. You could add energy or take away energy, but ONLY if it was enough to make those gaps. That is, you could give Mercury enough kinetic energy to jump to the Venus level, the Earth level, or the Mars level, but it would not accept any other amount. Further, once it jumps up, it will eventually return to the lowest level, but it can do it more than one way. If you jump it to Earth, it can either jump all the way back down, or take two steps - one to Venus and a second back to Mercury. Likewise, to Mars and it can take a single jump back, OR to Earth and then Venus and then Mercury, OR to Venus and then Mercury OR to Earth and then Mercury.

This is the way energy absorption and emission work on the micro level.

The way it works with green house gasses is that the Sun's radiation (visible, because other than a window of Radio, most other bands are blocked by the Earth's atmosphere) penetrates to the surface. It is absorbed by the molecules that make up the ground, buildings, mountains, and oceans. Then, it falls back down in more than one step (like falling back to Venus from Earth and THEN from Venus to Mercury), letting off two photons of EM-radiation that are lower energy than visible light, so they're in the infrared, but aren't in that Radio "window" where they can escape the Earth.

This is actually a good thing, as if all that heat escaped, the Earth would be a frozen ball of ice and we'd all be dead (or never alive in the first place.)

Why this is important:

.

"WHY THE CLIMATE MODELS ARE WRONG

The IPCC says that warming will produce more water vapor which will enhance greenhouse warming, a positive feedback. All their climate models are based on this assumption. Sounds reasonable, except in the real world it doesn’t happen. Increased water vapor produces more clouds which block the sun thereby inducing cooling, a negative feedback."

This was a point I made in passing earlier, by the way. The name of the effect of clouds (or light colored surface features on a planet or moon) is known as albedo. What it does is increase the amount of solar radiation reflected into space. If it can't penetrate to the surface, it can't become trapped in the first place.

Now, as I just explained, you need solar radiation to hit the surface to be split into lower energy bands where it will be trapped. Here's the thing - if you have cloud layers, they tend to reflect a lot of that Visible Spectrum radiation back into space (white objects are highly reflective in the Visible range).

This prevents that radiation from ever getting to the ground to split in the first place.

Pretty much all currently used climate change models IGNORE THIS EFFECT.

I should also point out that most climate change models ALSO ignore the effect of the Sun on the Earth, which is absurd - the Sun is the ONLY reason the Earth can EVER warm, because the Earth's core isn't active enough to maintain temperature for any length of time, especially not at the rate that the Earth would be bleeding off that heat!

Absolutely absurd.

.

"The atmosphere is not static; we have weather which tends to dissipate heat into space. According to real world measurements, the negative feedbacks overwhelm the theoretical positive feedback posed by the IPCC.

The greenhouse model is a simplified story that helps explain how our atmosphere works. However, the real world is very complicated and still not fully understood. Even global warming alarmist James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, had this to say: “The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” — James Hansen, “Climate forcings in the Industrial era”, PNAS, Vol. 95, Issue 22, 12753-12758, October 27, 1998.

And even the IPCC once admitted, “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” — Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC."

Read that and then tell me that the IPCC was wrong about itself being wrong and that you instead believe that it's right about what it said itself was possibly wrong.

The most important part is this: "we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system"

Why this is important?

Suppose you had a system with thousands of individual effects, causes and relations. A "forest". You can no longer treat it as a mere collection of "trees". Believe me, I used to do this. That's why I got a C in stat mech years ago. At some point, I finally learned, you have to see the forest. I used to think I could model a "forest" as a collection of "trees", and that the interactive effects would be minimal.

The truth is, the interactive effects dominate.

Such as:
"Carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse” gas, but its theoretical ability to warm the atmosphere (as shown on the graph) diminishes with increasing concentration. For instance, if a certain amount of carbon dioxide can cause a 1 degree temperature rise, it will take twice that amount to warm the next degree.

The reason it works this way is because carbon dioxide can absorb only a few specific wavelengths of thermal radiation. The current concentration of carbon dioxide has absorbed almost all available radiation in those wavelengths so there is little left for additional carbon dioxide to absorb. Water vapor absorbs many of the same wavelengths of thermal radiation decreasing the effect of carbon dioxide even more. That is why our proposed attempts to decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide will have almost no effect on temperature."

In the absence of water vapor in the atmosphere, CO2 has a large effect, yup.

...but with H2O being by far dominant, it already covers most of the wavelenths that CO2 would. Which basically minimizes the effects of CO2 on temperature since the H2O has already reached near saturation levels.

You're seeing the "tree" (CO2 greenhouse warming) and ignoring the "forest" (H2O greenhouse warming by far dominating.)

.

"HUMAN CONTRIBUTION TO GREENHOUSE GASES IS INSIGNIFICANT:

Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle."

(HE follows with a table.)

And:

"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming. For the derivation of these numbers, see my post: Your Carbon Footprint doesn’t Matter .

Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming.

The major greenhouse gas is water vapor which accounts for about 97% of the warming effect. The other 3% is attributed to carbon dioxide, methane, CFCs etc. Human carbon dioxide emissions represent about 3% of 3% of greenhouse gases or about one tenth of one percent of the total greenhouse effect and are therefore insignificant."

.

"THE SUN IS THE REAL CLIMATE DRIVER

The real drivers of climate are the Sun’s insolation (light and heat), its magnetic flux, and the relative position and orientation of the Earth to the Sun.

There are three main positional variations of the Earth and Sun, called Milankovitch cycles: Orbital Eccentricity, Axial Obliquity (tilt), and Precession of the Equinoxes. These cycles affect the amount and location of sunlight impinging on the earth."

He then briefly addresses cloud effect on temperature (and that it is still not totally understood) followed by some links.

.

He finally goes on to mention sea level rise (which is increasing, but at a decreasing rate, much diminished from the past when we were warming out of the last Ice Age) and ocean acidity.

He also notes that the Earth's CO2 has been as much as 11 TIMES what it is now, and that even in those conditions, the Earth's temperature was not (there was actually an ICE AGE during a period where the CO2 levels were ELEVEN TIMES what they are now.)

.

Okay, now then.

Address these points scientifically.

And for the record, "Just the typical denialism lies that has been debunked numerous times even in this thread," is NOT a scientific address.

If it's so easy to debunk them, then please, humor me and do so now.

Because I'm really curious how well you actually understand the science you claim to. I will note that I've not yet had ONE reply to ANY of my posts where the science or reason presented was attacked.

Dismissed, yes. Countered or addressed, no.

[Sayl]

Just the typical denialism lies that has been debunked numerous times even in this thread.

With very little effort, we could probably turn pillar spotting into a drinking game.

[Renathras]

With very little effort, we could probably turn pillar spotting into a drinking game.

Okay, point out for me which of those points in my previous post are wrong AND explain how and why they're wrong. Preferably with some nice charts and graphs, though I'll accept solid reasoning with scientific principles. Preferably physics. I like physics.

[Lollis]

"THE CURRENT WARM PERIOD IS NOT UNUSUAL

The graph below, based on reconstruction from the geologic and historical records, shows that there have been several warm/cold cycles since the end of the last glacial epoch. The temperature during the Holocene Climate Optimum was 3ºF to 10ºF warmer than today in many areas. This is warmer than the extreme scenarios of the IPCC. Clearly, current temperatures are neither unprecedented nor unusually warm."

There's an accompanying graph. I also posted another link with a temperature graph. In fact, go to google, type in global temperature geologic record and hit the image link and you can find PLENTY of images showing the temperature of the planet over time and that it has been much higher in the past than it is now, well before Humans were on the scene.

People keep bringing this shit up, nobody is debating if the global temperature was warmer or colder in the past. The temperatures of tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago means absolutely nothing. Tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago we did not have 7 billion people alive. Billions of years ago the planet was hotter than satan's ass, doesn't mean it will not be bad for us if it happens now.

[Renathras]

People keep bringing this shit up, nobody is debating if the global temperature was warmer or colder in the past. The temperatures of tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago means absolutely nothing. Tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago we did not have 7 billion people alive. Billions of years ago the planet was hotter than satan's ass, doesn't mean it will not be bad for us if it happens now.

That may be true. But there's a reason this is important.

If the Earth has been warmer in the past, it means that:

1) It doesn't kill everything.
2) It doesn't destroy the planet.
3) Life survives it.
4) Global warming MAY WELL BE a thing that happens without Human involvement. This draws into question the crux of the anthropogenic global climate change perspective - that being that Humans cause global warming in its entirety and that there's no global warming in the absence of Humans (which is the general argument - ask proponents what part of global climate change is caused by non-Human factors. Will they say a majority? Probably not.)

So it means absolutely everything. Which is a far cry from absolutely nothing.

[semaphore]

When did I say that Human carbon emissions don't cause a greenhouse effect?

What I'm questioning is the LEVEL of that effect.

Which you are doing without any scientific evidence or valid logical reasoning. As demonstrated by your immediate attempt to change the subject to "current warming is not unusual". Which, by the way, is irrelevant to whether or not humans are causing the current warming. Fucking logic, how does it work?

And the rest of your copy pasted crap is just standard anti-science lies that has been debunked over and over again. Like seriously, I just linked the graph disproving the claim that "it's the sun!" like three pages ago - for the Nth time.

---------- Post added 2012-12-13 at 04:58 AM ----------

Okay, point out for me which of those points in my previous post are wrong AND explain how and why they're wrong. Preferably with some nice charts and graphs, though I'll accept solid reasoning with scientific principles. Preferably physics. I like physics.

Here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

It's not like you stumbled upon some great discovery no other scientist are aware of. All of your regurgitated pseudo-scientific lies have been debunked multiple times, many even in this very thread.

[Vaengence]

The point was that there were parts that you left out that undermine your position.

I am assuming you both have me confused with someone else - I never gave a position on the film.

[semaphore]

With very little effort, we could probably turn pillar spotting into a drinking game.

I'd be drunk for the rest of my life!

---------- Post added 2012-12-13 at 05:03 AM ----------

If the Earth has been warmer in the past, it means that:

1) It doesn't kill everything.
2) It doesn't destroy the planet.
3) Life survives it.

This again? Please, get some new material.

For the last time, it's humanity that we are worried about. It's human civilisation that's under threat. Of course global warming doesn't destroy the planet or all life, that is both incredibly moronic as well as a pathetically transparent strawman. One that has been raised at least a dozen times already in this thread.

[Grizzly Willy]

I am assuming you both have me confused with someone else - I never gave a position on the film.

You were attempting to point out issues with the film.

[Vaengence]

You were attempting to point out issues with the film.

Yes and the film has issues - the point is?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Okay, now then.

Address these points scientifically.

I like how people think that they can post a wall of text, without sources, without links, that was basically just ctrl+v, and then expect people to go line by line and tell them why they are wrong.

There's a much easier way of doing this Renathras. Link us a study conducted by a reputable scientific organization that agrees with your hypothesis, and we will take a look at it. Better yet, link us several studies by several reputable scientific organizations that come to the conclusion that AGW is not a threat that should not be acted upon. We will wait.

[Sayl]

Okay, point out for me which of those points in my previous post are wrong AND explain how and why they're wrong. Preferably with some nice charts and graphs, though I'll accept solid reasoning with scientific principles. Preferably physics. I like physics.

Oh noes, the gauntlet has been dropped. I've been challenged to debunk a block of copy/pasted blog entries written by a politically conservative retired economic geologist (Jonathan DuHamel). Forget the fact that these common claims run contrary to the cumulative findings of the world's academic and scientific bodies, or that they're already addressed and refuted by any number of governmental and independent websites that are well within reach of anyone truly interested in assessing their validity -- if I don't parse that post line-by-line to your satisfaction, it's all for naught. Oh, the humanity!

---------- Post added 2012-12-12 at 11:19 PM ----------

I'd be drunk for the rest of my life!

Very true. Although, that might take the edge off reading through the quantity of truly ignorant responses in these threads.

[Vaengence]

There's a much easier way of doing this Renathras. Link us a study conducted by a reputable scientific organization that agrees with your hypothesis, and we will take a look at it. Better yet, link us several studies by several reputable scientific organizations that come to the conclusion that AGW is not a threat that should not be acted upon. We will wait.

You realise you are never going to get that yes? For AGW to be determined not a threat, as I have said before, it means determining whether we have overestimated feedbacks. I have posted quite a few reviewed papers on this subject and I get back a lot of arm chair critics who attempt to disregard them despite in the same breath being told that nothing I say is valid unless I have peer reviewed research to back it up.

Lets start with 2 - Lindzen & Choi 2009 and their corrections in 2011 that show from direct measurements feedbacks from CO2 are likely negative. I linked both papers already and said what they find. What would your response be?

[Grizzly Willy]

Yes and the film has issues - the point is?

That the issues you cited had, um, issues?

[Vaengence]

That the issues you cited had, um, issues?

The issues I cited were the judgment of the Court after it was determined that those issues had no basis in the science as determined by the IPCC - would you like to now object to their ruling? I assume so - I take it you know better yes?