AGW-Anthrogenic Global Warming

[texbaylea]

My son, granddaughter and I have been having an ongoing arguement about global warming. I contend that they have been brainwashed in support of global warming as I am a skeptic about man-caused global warming (AGW).

I have been researching what is really known about "global Warming". I put it quotation marks because I don't believe that it exists. Just variations due to natural processes.

I found this skeptics handbook and thought I would throw it out there for everyone to shoot at.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics_handbook_2-0.pdf

Vernon

Sorry! That should have been Anthropogenic Global Warming. My thoughts were faster than my fingers

 

[deereman64]

There are a couple of terms in your thread that I find interesting.
1) Brainwashed - Im not sure of the exact definition but lets say it means they were subjugated to an unreasonable amount of information that made them incapable of making a rationale decision. I dont think that this could be argued as the case in the US. For the last 8 years the media and other sources have essentially been in a stand off mode on this subject. May be its different in the rest of the world, one newspaper in the UK was told to tone it down because it was unrelenting in its doom and gloom.
2) man-made global warming. Lets say it is a natural phenomena does that alter the outcome? Certainly the planet has gone through climatic change in the past and this hasn't been due to man-made events but the nasty point is that these changes have occured at a faster pace than the fauna and flora have been able to adapt to. The question should really be how can we modify the rate of change to a level that does not impinge too greatly on our ability to prosper or indeed in more dire scenarios survive. So far our response has been to try and limit this derivative of the slope.
Now I happen to think that some of this approach is muddled.For example, I think one assumption is that the change will occur as a straight line. This is an important assumption since it means that the political pressure to reverse the process will strengthen as time goes forward, but say we go through a period over the next 20 years when nothing much happens resulting in diminishing political pressure ,but then the temperatures shoot up and we find ourselves in dire straits very quickly.

 

[CurlyDave]

I can't find the graph any more, but one of the most interesting things I have ever seen was a chart showing global temperatures of the past few thousand years.

There were two time periods which had temperatures several degrees above what we are now experiencing. The most recent of these corresponded with the Renaissance, and the one further in the past corresponded with the rise of the Roman empire. Essentially, these were the two times in all of history when civilization advanced at the fastest pace of all time.

I believe that solar input drives global temperature to a far greater extent than greenhouse gases and that man can not do much about it.

But, even if man can change climate, can anyone explain to me why we would ever want to avoid the climate conditions which lead to rapid advance of civilization?

 

[CurlyDave]

I found the link Power Line - Dispelling the Global Warming Myth

 

[DieselPower]

I myself believe that man does have a effect on the environment. Having worked at a printing press years ago that printed mainly scientific journals and still having many friends that work there I am lucky enough to to have free access to loads of magazines and journals. Most everything I have read shows that we are effecting the climate faster than has been recorded in previous history. Just look at Glaciers and the worlds ice sheets (or what's left of many of them). I have a aunt that is originally from Greenland and my uncle and her visit there once a year. They can't believe how fast the ice sheet's are disappearing there. At the rate the ice sheet's are melting there Greenland might actually be all green in another 30 or 40 years instead of mostly 1/2 mile + thick ice. Shoot, there's even proof here in the US. My father showed me some pictures he took of Portage Glacier near Anchorage, Alaska in the mid 50's. When I was there 2 years ago on a hunting trip the Glacier was almost completely gone and the area looked nothing like the pictures did from 50 years ago. It's now nothing more than a lake.

How do the disbelievers explain the highest levels of CO2 in the last 20 million years? Shot they have skyrocketed in just the last couple of hundred.

Etheridge et al reconstructed atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels from thee ice cores taken from Law Dome, East Antarctica between 1987 and 1993. The Law Dome CO2 data extends from 1006 AD until 1978 AD, a 972 year period.

The Law Dome atmospheric CO2 trends show a relatively stable trend between 1006 and 1750. After 1750, the atmospheric CO2 level increased, with an accelerating trend in the 20th century.

Just look at the global temperature average since 1860.

The facts don't lie, they just show the sad truth that we are destroying the planet. I guess I should count myself lucky as I will probably be dead by the time we turn the planet into a steaming haze covered pile of .....

 

[DieselPower]

I found the link Power Line - Dispelling the Global Warming Myth

I would trust anything I heard from the Heartland Institute about as far as I could throw them. Do a little research on who funds them. Big oil is a key supporter. Exxon has donated over $600,000 to them.


They are also good at falsifying list of supporters. The Heartland Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!"

In response, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list, writing that "They [the scientists] have no right legally or ethically demand that their names be removed from a bibliography." The Institute did rename the list from its original title (chosen by its public relations department) to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares", to clarify that the scientists in question do not doubt global warming. Ultimately, the Heartland Institute concluded that "... the point should be obvious: There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a crisis."]

 

[LMTC]

How do the disbelievers explain the highest levels of CO2 in the last 20 million years?

All based on supposition upon supposition, since there are no records, only interpretation. The suppositions are based on a belief in uniformitarianism, or that change and various atmospheric/earth processes have always occured at the same rate. The only basis for that is a belief system. It is not my belief system.

 

[Steve_Miller]

Can someone show some temperature and co2 charts up just before the ice age for comparison? Oh yeh, the ice melted so we have no records? I can't believe how many varying opinions there are of all of these phenomenons, its like everyone has facts to base their theory's on, good or bad.

Steve

 

[MossRoad]

I watched an interesting show on the formation of the Great Lakes the other night. They concluded that the Great Lakes are only about 10-12 thousand years old. They were carved out by glaciers that advanced and retreated several times. The ice was over a mile thick. It weighed so much that is pushed the earth down under it. Now that the ice is gone, the earth under where the glaciers were is now is rising up. The lake levels are not dropping, rather the land underneath them is rising and the water is spilling out over Niagara Falls. They also calculated the age of Niagara Falls at about the same age as the Great Lakes, 10-12 thousand years old. The falls move back about 3' every year. Think about that for a minute... since 1800 the falls have moved over 600' back towards lake Erie. They have documented eye-witness accounts and photographs of where the falls used to be. The glaciers that formed the Great Lakes melted long before the industrial revolution.

So, while I do think that the amount of pollution caused by human activities is definitely not healthy for any of us, or the planet, and it may, indeed contribute something to climate change, in the big picture of time, it won't matter one bit. After reading about the rapid retreat of the Great Lakes glaciers over a relatively short 10,000 year time span, I think the current global warming is part of a natural cycle that we can do nothing about.

However, we still should be concerned about the amount of pollution that man causes because we and our children and our childrens' children have to live here.

 

[dmccarty]

The problem with the posted graphs is that they only go back a few years. Going back to the 1800's or even 1000 is too short of a time span when we are talking cooling and warming cycles that are tens of thousands of years in length.

File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This graph from Vostok ice cores and goes back 400,000 years. CO2 goes up. Temperature goes up. Looks like the temperature rise maxes out at 2-3 degree C. I don't think humanity had anything to do with CO2 rise 50,000 or 400,000 years ago.

One of the famous hockey stick graphs that was posted on TBN years ago showed CO2/temp rise, which then peaked and both CO2/temp dropped like a stone. The linked graph shows the same thing.

Supporters of Man Made Global Warming never seem to show all of the data. Just the data that supports their view.

Greenland was named Greenland by the Vikings because it was Green. Archeologists looking at Viking settlements can chart the climate change as temperatures fell from the bones they found. The Vikings had the typical European livestock, sheep, cows, etc, but as the temperature fell the bones of the land based animals decreased since the animals could not survive. The Vikings live somewhat off the sea but not as well as the native population. The Vikings either left or died since they did not adapt.

I don't think humanity cause the warming period that allowed Greenland to be green anymore than I think humanity caused Greenland to be ice.

Seems to me when you look at the FULL graphs that we are about to start an ice age. About could be in the next 1,000 years or so.

Later,
Dan

 

[charlz]

But, even if man can change climate, can anyone explain to me why we would ever want to avoid the climate conditions which lead to rapid advance of civilization?

A long time ago I came across the quote "The biggest mistake people make is to believe that things will always stay the same"

In this case they are afraid of change because they expect it to not change. I would much rather be warming than cooling.... food doesn't grow in ice.

 

[charlz]

The problem with the posted graphs is that they only go back a few years.

Also that they stop several years ago. Supposedly the winters of 2007/08 and 2008/09 are the coldest since the 70's... but the graphs don't show that. Sea ice has been at it's greatest levels in decades as well. AGW supporters are now backpedaling and stating that a period of cooling before more heating is to be expected

 

[charlz]

File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This graph from Vostok ice cores and goes back 400,000 years. CO2 goes up. Temperature goes up.

Actually you read that graph right to left not left to right. As Temperature goes up CO2 goes up. One of the theories out there is that the oceans store lots and lots of CO2. Warm water can hold less CO2 that cold water. As the temps rise the oceans release CO2.

There is still a 'chicken and the egg' problem with a lot of the data. Supposedly the famous graph that everyone uses has the CO2 leading the temps when it should be the other way around.

Search for "The Great Global Warming Swindle " on Google video for an interesting perspective.

 

[texbaylea]

Interesting comments. Here is a paper graphing some of the things you have written about.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

The Petition Project mentioned in the banner is a listing of people who disbelieve in global warming.

Remember "correlation does not mean causation".

Vernon

 

[dmccarty]

Actually you read that graph right to left not left to right. As Temperature goes up CO2 goes up....

The graph is time based. I read the graph starting at 0 meaning todaish going back in time 400,000 years so left to right.

OTH I don't think it much matters talking about AGW. 50,000 years ago humanity did not cause global warming or global cooling. So whether warming causes CO2 rise or CO2 rise causes warming is not important for AGW.

Which happens first CO2 rise or temp rise is interesting to understand climate change. Even if the chart is read right to left or left to right its kinda hard to tell which caused what. Maybe a larger/more detail graph would show but my eyes can't really see which came first Chicken or the egg/CO2 or temperature change.

Later,
Dan

 

[charlz]

So whether warming causes CO2 rise or CO2 rise causes warming is not important for AGW.

Actually that is the crux of AGW.. that CO2 makes temps go up. If data were to show the opposite, that temps go up and CO2 follows, then AGW has no basis

 

[polo1665]

This is a very interesting topic and one that I usually stay away from. I am sort of a man made global warming agnostic. While I would like not to believe it, I also feel that our presence has to have some impact on this earth. If your dog was sick and infested with six and a half billion ticks, it might be safe to say that they were the cause of its health problems.
That is where I think we go wrong, we tend to disassociate ourselves with the ecosystem and nature, when we are very much a part of it. It is irresponsible to assume that we can continue to suck the life blood (so to speak) out of the earth without some negative effect. The issue to me is not whether we have an effect on our surroundings, it is rather, how our surroundings will react to put things back into balance. This earth has been around for billions of years before we were here and has survived worse threats than us.
It is said not to underestimate the will of life, that it will always find a way. You can believe that the earth will not cease to exist due to our actions. Surely we wouldn't be so egotistical as to think that we are the sole purpose the earth exists, that it is here solely for our benefit. We are a very small part of the grand scheme of things in my opinion. If mother earth decides she has had enough of us, she'll brush us off her back like a horse brushes a fly off with its tail.
Sorry to get so philsophical, but when I go out at night and look up at the stars I suddenly feel very small and vulnerable. It is then that I appreciate the sheer immensity of our surroundings. We are very small, and it would do us all well to remember that.

Mark

 

[jimmyj]

Amen polo 1665! Well said.

Recently someone posted a neat old chinese proverb, went something like

"All great feasts will come to an end"

All us people, there must be some natural reaction to our influence in the ecosystem.

 

[charlz]

I don't believe that man's presence has no influence on the environment. I believe that man's presence is NOT THE ONLY influence on the environment. When presented with a list of environmental influences:

Sun spot activity
Oscillations in Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun (100,000 year cycle)
volcanic emissions
variations in the earths tilt (42,000 year cycle)
man made emissions

Some people grab on to only one, want to guess which one?

I think the key item to look out for in any 'environmental issue' is the increasing amount of them that have an anti-human basis. People who have an anti-human basis blame everything on man to the exclusion of all else. I don't believe that. I believe that mans presence HAS an effect but not to the degree that it is the ONLY and predominate one affecting global climate.

As more 'environmental' views become mainstream the environmentalists have to become more and more extreme to stay 'anti-establishment'. Ultimately you reach the 'man doesn't belong here' mentality which is where things get dangerous. We go from 'man is the king of the jungle' to 'man is a parasite'.

 

[czechsonofagun]

Unfortunately it is now political issue more than anything else. Some people made it their vehicle to make the news, rake in money, collect rewards etc.
Climate is always changing and GW today is a religion, nothing more, nothing less.

I had people approach me asking: how is global warming affecting country - i.e. Czech Republic. Well, according to the history of my country, it used to be much warmer there - when Charles the 4th brought vinifera from Burgundy (14th Century). It was about the time we were able to grow water melons - not possible anymore, too far north.

Without politicians, who make their living via GW it would faded away long time ago - just like predictions of approaching ice age (seventies or so). BTW The Club of Rome was one of those who predicted that ice age. That think tank actually did not foretold anything correctly, b ut they make very good money out of it. Guess what, they jumped the GW wagon too, LOL!