A really stupid global warming question

a reply to: network dude

Allow me to respond to your question with another question, one that I think sums up the futility of this whole "debate":

If we are increasing the concentration of a proven greenhouse gas, one that we know from very basic physics traps heat:

Shouldn't we expect rising temperatures?

Now let me add a follow up question:

How come every single climate skeptic always dodges this question, by pointing at irrelevant natural cycles, and only asking questions like yours instead?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: ArtemisE
Plus, not all of the CO2's re-emission (the mechanism behind the greenhouse effect) radiate back to Earth - a majority of it actually radiates back to space:

Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

science.nasa.gov...

Climate is not just a black-and white system. It's a rather complex, almost chaotic system.

That article is about something completely different - the role CO2 in the thermosphere plays by re-radiating external infrared radiation back into space (thus actually producing a minor cooling effect for those of us on the surface).

Meanwhile CO2 in the troposphere re-radiates infrared heat from the surface back towards us. In both cases it returns to sender.

So if you're going to use this article to make your point, then you're actually saying tropospheric CO2 re-radiates 95% of the heat back down, not up.

But I love how skeptics here pick and choose their science whenever it's convenient. If NASA has an article implying that CO2 causes cooling or radiates most heat into space - then it's perfectly legit, acceptable physics, no questions asked. But when you apply those EXACT SAME physics to trapping man-made emissions from the surface - all of a sudden it's reason for extreme skepticism and apparently NASA is fudging all of its numbers to support an agenda anyway lol.

a reply to: network dude

Its a great question...I think some of global warming is indeed man made but like you observed its also going to change without us interfering....which goes back to my number 1 issue, how are we going to prepare for it regardless of what or who is doing it? The majority of the planet lives on the coast.

a reply to: mc_squared

thx for the video..by the way I love your avatar pic..I had that as my background for a long time...such a bad dude haha

originally posted by: network dude
In my defense, I am a computer guy and not a climate scientist.

If we are coming out of an ice age, shouldn't we kind of expect to have rising temperatures?

Yes we should. But as Grimpachi has already pointed out, the change should be a lot, lot slower. It's not that rapid changes like this would affect us directly : humans are a very adaptative species. However, they are and will continue to affect us in an indirect manner : many of the species that we share this planet with, and whose very existence determines our own, are extremely sensitive to abrupt evironmental change. That is what most educated people who subscribe to the scenario of anthropogenic climate change (as do the vast majority of all climatologists) are worried about : that we are engineering a mass extinction on a scale large enough to endanger our own survival as a species.

originally posted by: mc_squared
Now let me add a follow up question:

How come every single climate skeptic always dodges this question, by pointing at irrelevant natural cycles, and only asking questions like yours instead?

I am just trying to understand this whole thing, and I seem to be shunned every time I bring logical thought into the discussion.

I heard all about the Co2, and how it was going to make us warm up a bunch, but the models seem to be incorrect and we only warmed a little. Now as I said, I am not qualified to make any presumptions or proclamations here, but I noticed you didn't answer my question either. Or should I not ask that question?

And why are natural cycles "irrelevant" when discussing Global Earth Climate? Didn't they have to use some cyclical data to arrive at the mean temperature they used as the base for warming? See, from the uneducated seats, it gets more confusing as time passes and we aren't turned to dust. (the dust thing was a joke, so please don't make a big deal about it)

a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Thanks man

Yeah I love his moxie - the guys above him look so confused by his lack of mindless allegiance.

Back on topic for anyone else interested - the physics of CO2 forcing are very simple, and you don't even need a fancy lab setup to prove this stuff. There are plenty of experiments anyone can set up right from their own home if they wanted to:






That's really how simple it all is in the end. Of course this stuff gets wildly more complicated in scope when you apply it to a complex system like the Earth/climate, but the basic physics are still the basic physics, and when heat is being trapped - something must be getting warmer. It ain't rocket surgery.

a reply to: Ismail

I really do get what you are saying. I just have a hard time looking at what our climate has done over thousands of years, and then trying to point to a 100 year window and claim it's different, even though it looks really, really, really similar.

And while everyone is bickering about who is at fault, we still pollute. I'd gladly stop driving my car if I had an alternative. If I could afford a bunch of land, I'd love to go plant trees on it. If someone could tell me what I could do today to fix this, I'd do it, and I bet most others would as well. Even without being frightened into believing some terrible fate awaits us if we don't.

But if you look at the big picture, perhaps the Earth would be in a better position once we are shown the door.

originally posted by: swanne
If you trust people and fear of questioning them because they are called "experts", then this is your decision. But as for me I prefer investigating if one degree is really that big a deal.

Are you aware of the global temperature difference between the last full-on ice age (when New York was covered in a mile of ice) and today?

originally posted by: network dude
I am just trying to understand this whole thing, and I seem to be shunned every time I bring logical thought into the discussion.

The reason you might be shunned is not because of logical thought, but because of ignorance. That's okay, as long as you can admit it and learn. Refusing to listen to people who have dedicated their lives to understanding the world is beyond mere ignorance, however.

For you and other people who are on the fence or otherwise skeptical:
1) Do you believe CO2 causes heating?
2) Do you believe that CO2 concentration has been increasing?
3) Do you believe sea ice is decreasing?
4) Do you believe the Sun influences the Earth's climate?

a reply to: mc_squared

How much C02 is normal, and how much it too much? And who makes that decision?

a reply to: network dude

I'm not chastising you. I'm glad you're actually asking questions and being humble about it, like a real skeptic would, instead of most phony skeptics who just make authoritative statements about what a big hoax it is and how stupid anyone who believes it is, while posting all sorts of bad blog science to support their own blind beliefs.

But my point is the whole "natural cycles" question is irrelevant to the underlying physics that explain why man made warming is occurring. If you have a pot sitting on a stovetop and you know that stove is on, do you question whether it's actually working, because other pots have warmed naturally by sitting in the sun before?

Meanwhile - the models have not been wrong. This is just another bad blog science farce. Projections have still fallen well within expected fluctuations and error bars.

And to avoid avoiding your question - it's certainly possible that there is also natural warming occurring now, nobody's saying otherwise, but the evidence simply doesn't stack up for that:

Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?

originally posted by: Greven

For you and other people who are on the fence or otherwise skeptical:
1) Do you believe CO2 causes heating?

Based on what I have learned it does. But my question is, since we have always had CO2 (dinosaur farts), how much is the right amount? Plants need it. They crave it. And can that change with other factors?

2) Do you believe that CO2 concentration has been increasing?

Studies show that yes, that is the case. That, as far as I understand, isn't up for debate, it's recorded fact.

3) Do you believe sea ice is decreasing?

I am not sure. Not to be a dumbass, but I hear reports both ways. And I found out the other day that the ice caps have completely disappeared in the past and came back. So this is something I need to better understand.

4) Do you believe the Sun influences the Earth's climate?

Since it's our only source of warmth, I'd have to say yes.

How did I do?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: mc_squared

How much C02 is normal, and how much it too much? And who makes that decision?

It depends how warm you like your planet. Most of us prefer to keep it as stable as possible to what we've been used to for the last 10,000+ years.

There is something called the Idealized Greenhouse Model. This is a relatively simple mathematical model (not a complicated supercomputer one), that is well established and accepted, even by skeptic scientists. It shows (again, based on the fundamental physics alone) that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a 1.2 C temperature rise. This is really not in dispute.

However that does not include feedbacks - which are a much more complicated topic and why the final tally on total temperature rise is more broad.

But again my point is - you can't write all this stuff off just because "climate changes naturally all the time".

It doesn't make the physics go away.

a reply to: mc_squared

Ah yes, the reports. This is something that should be illegal and punishable by death. We see the same data displayed in different ways to mis-represent or push an agenda. If I go to a pro AGW site, guess what? They claim all their data is right and the others are crackpots. Then I go to an anti AGW site and see the opposite.

Yet here we are, on the same planet with the same data resources for both sides.

I tend to lean towards the Earth is a bit to large and dynamic for us to make a large impact on it's temperature. But as I said, I don't have the creds to state that. Which is why I ask these questions. I'd love to be vindicated and find out that AGW is a lie. Then we don't have to worry about accepting blame, or dying a horrible death in a few years. But none of us have that knowledge yet.

When I talk about contrails and computers, I am very confident that I do know what I am talking about. With this, not so much. So thanks for taking the time to respond with the tone you did.

originally posted by: network dude
Based on what I have learned it does. But my question is, since we have always had CO2 (dinosaur farts), how much is the right amount? Plants need it. They crave it. And can that change with other factors?

As several people including me have already pointed out, there is no "right amount", because it's not a question of amounts. Given enough time, our biosphere can adapt. Dinosaur populations fluctuated, species evolved, methane/CO2 increased, but it didn't matter because it happened slowly, over millions, and millions of years. That's not comparable to burning half the fossil fuel on earth in less than a century.

a reply to: network dude

There are better ways than having to give up driving or using electricity the problem is those ways would require an initial investment.

We could build more geothermal power plants. They cost more to build than coal plants, but cost projections of the power generated come in lower than coal. Doing such would also require changes to the electrical infrastructure however that is long overdo anyway. Such an endeavor would create a lot of jobs as well so it could even the costs out.

One technology I am hopeful for is what the Navy has been working on. They have found a way to convert sea water into liquid fuel. The process removes co2 from the water as well and if that fuel was run in cars the effect would be removing co2 from the atmosphere because much of it would be captured in the existing emission systems such as the muffler.

The navy says they can convert it at $6 a gallon, but they are using expensive nuclear energy to convert it. If we were to use cheap geothermal energy for the conversion the cost would decrease. The Navy is working on refining the process to lower the cost as we speak.

Point is there are alternatives and they really aren't as painful as most people think.

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: mc_squared

How much C02 is normal, and how much it too much? And who makes that decision?

It depends how warm you like your planet. Most of us prefer to keep it as stable as possible to what we've been used to for the last 10,000+ years.

What if we start a massive campaign to reduce our CO2, and then find out that plants are dying and we are getting too cold? If the AGW side is right, then we have the ability to basically control global climate over an entire planet. I don't let the kids touch the thermostat. Who get's to control it?

Thinking in those terms, makes me thing if we have control, or even impact, it's very little. (but again, only my thoughts)

originally posted by: network dude
I don't let the kids touch the thermostat. Who get's to control it?

Well you're right - it basically is like touching the thermostat:

CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature

But the whole point is NOT to touch it.

We shouldn't have raised it in the first place, so the whole movement to reduce CO2 is to simply put the thermostat back to where it was in the first place.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Point is there are alternatives and they really aren't as painful as most people think.

You would think that at this stage, with all the hype and gloom and doom, we would be moving in that direction. I am not sure I see it.

I was all for Hydrogen, but the scientists all slammed me for the obvious energy it takes to make it. If Solar or geo thermal energy was used, it would offset the damage done by creating it. (at least in my tiny mind) I remember Honda had a graphic of a home energy station that created hydrogen with solar and fueled your car and powered your house. But that is tales of Dragons and Fairies.

originally posted by: network dude
What if we start a massive campaign to reduce our CO2, and then find out that plants are dying and we are getting too cold? If the AGW side is right, then we have the ability to basically control global climate over an entire planet. I don't let the kids touch the thermostat. Who get's to control it?

Thinking in those terms, makes me thing if we have control, or even impact, it's very little. (but again, only my thoughts)

So because admitting to the reality of AGW might bring up some problems, therefore it doesn't exist ?