A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth

A couple of comments here:

Originally posted by edsinger
Does the 50% rise in CO2 coming to 400ppm have more effect than the sun being in a 'hot' cycle once again?

Yes.

Here's some research (confirming other research, supported by other evidence) on the topic:
www.sciencemag.org...

Which is more likely? Keep in mind that the Martian caps are also melting.

Side thought, Mars is almost all CO2 and global warming is running away there isn't it?

Actually, the evidence that "other planets in the solar system are warming" is wrong. The Martian evidence actually isn't very conclusive, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere there is high...but there's almost no atmosphere.
www.zpenergy.com...

Originally posted by Deharg
As a few have said before I don't want to put words In the mouth of Muadib, but I have read all of these posts and do not recall him EVER saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

You may not remember it, but he has. On quite a few occassions. Here are a couple of choice quotes from this thread in particular where he claimed to have evidence there was no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Really?... I though that CO2 was an evil greenhouse gas which is causing Global Warming... if that was true then CO2 should have been higher when temperatures have been higher in the past....yet they are not...

and

Originally posted by Muaddib
i just gave several research excerpts which actually state there were warmer times in the past yet CO2 levels were lower than today...
Let's see what else... that and the fact that temperatures were increasing since the early 1600s and CO2 levels did not increase until 260 years later... Plus the fact that for example the Sun's output has increased during the past 60 years more than during the last 8,000 years... The fact that the Earth's magnetic field has not been as weak as it is now for more than 770,000 years.... The fact that we are seeing Climate Change/warming in other planets in the solar system...

Read the entire thread though, to get a better idea of what Mauddib was saying, and how the idea he presented as "scientific fact" is categorically false.

Originally posted by Athenion I guess I don't understand the comparison here. Are you saying that because Mars has a higher level of CO2 in their atmosphere, they should have a higher temperature than the Earth? Because that seems silly, since as far as I understand it, Mars is a bit further from the sun that we are.

You are right, its farther but the greenhouse effect would make it much warmer and for all I know maybe it even has a small effect on mars at present. Mars is VERY cold but what warmth it does get comes from the Sun and that has increased enough lately to cause the "Dry Ice Caps" to start melting along with our ice caps on earth which is the whole point of my argument. I was being sarcastic in my statement, sorry about the misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Athenion
I don't think that the 50% rise in CO2 has more effect than the sun being in a hot cycle, but you're missing the point. It is effecting the environment, and there's little scientific dispute of that fact. I wish we could stop pretending that those who think global warming is an issue are blaming mankind entirely for the problem. We're not. We're saying, there's a natural warming cycle right now, and our CO2 pollution is making it worse.

I would agree with most of that, my only argument would be to what degree the CO2 is making it worse, I believe it might be 1-5% of the cause and I do not think that is enough to take the drastic measures that are being proposed on my country while giving China and India a free ride. As far as I am concerned North America is a net Carbon sink right now (We absorb more than we emit)

I can not find the actual link but I did read it, but here are some that explain it better than I can:

America's Amazing Carbon Sink

Viable causes for why plants have done so well include a revival of forests from agricultural and urban clear-cutting in the 1800s, greater concentrations of atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning, and warmer global temperatures in the 1900s. But a new study points to another factor vital to plant growth that may be at the root of the matter—more water.

Forests and other vegetation in the U.S. consume about a quarter of the carbon dioxide gas the country produces each year. Over the past few decades the size of this “carbon sink” has been growing. NASA researchers now believe increased rain and snowfall are encouraging plant growth, which in turn is sequestering carbon dioxide

According to the NASA-funded study that used 100 years of temperature and precipitation-related data, computer model results showed that on average from 1950 to 1993, an 8 percent increase in precipitation combined with higher humidity has led to a 14 percent increase in plant growth in the United States. The data over that period also show increases in cloud cover, minimum surface temperatures, soil moisture, and stream flows, which are all signs of a changing water cycle.

when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the United States cannot accurately be labeled as all give and no take

Originally posted by Athenion There's nothing we can do about the sun being in a hot cycle, but we can mitigate what you yourself admit is a greenhouse gas, and therefore help curb global warming, and stop mankind's contribution to the problem.

Agreed about being a greenhouse gas, but these methods that are proposed are economically painful and I feel that at best they would only minimally affect global warming anyway - you know putting out a forest fire with a squirt gun.

Originally posted by Athenion This was more a comment directed at Mauddib, as he tends to quote the same report over and over which he thinks proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Your position, while I may not agree with it, is at least a reasonable and arguable one.

OK, its a greenhouse gas alright, no agreement there (see Venus). What I ,mean is to what degree is MAN helping the effect along? Seriously look at mars, how in the hell can power plant and Suvs on earth be affecting the Martian Polar caps?

I am sorry but neither of the posts you mention actually say what you claim.

You can take them that way if you wish but I am sorry they do NOT say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

They say if CO2 was the casue of the current warming then temps would be higher. That is not the same thing. The whole thrust of the argument from Muadibs point of view is thay it is not THE problem but a VERY small contributor.
If you had read the summary report for policy makers ( I apologise if you have but it looks like you have not) The report makes the same statement for water vapour and a less strong one for Methane. (unfortunately the methane levels currently steadfastly refuse to marry up to the model given to them...)
While we are on the subject of models, the temp rise does not match the model given to it either ..
That differemce is why I give some credence to what muadib is saying while at the same time giving equal credence to melatonins argument.
I have no agenda other than to watch the discussion it is a good one but please do not put words in anyones mouth.

You have the right to take what muadib says anyway you want to. Try asking him rather than asuming that might work..

I do not think anyone is claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it is, and of this there is not argument.

Originally posted by Deharg
I am sorry but neither of the posts you mention actually say what you claim.

OK, how about this latest then, from this thread

Originally posted by Deharg
Again...the geological record has shown us that CO2 has been higher in the past and there was no harmful effects from higher CO2 levels...

Instead try to concentrate on cleaning up rivers, or on the other real polluters....

CO2 is not a pollutant, and it is not the cause of the current warming cycle.

Look, I was just clarifying why I said what I said. I've had many, many, many arguements with mauddib, and as far as I can tell, he's claimed time and time again that CO2 is not a pollutant, and not a greenhouse gas. His main basis for this arguement is to show studies where at other time, CO2 levels have been low, and global temperatures have been high, and other times CO2 levels have been high, and global temperatures low. But I don't want to have a debate over what Mauddib has or hasn't said. I'd like to stay on topic if possible.

So if you think that CO2 is only effecting 1-5% of our environment, why don't you think mitigating those ffects is a good idea? Even if you're right, and there are no immediate dangers, surely the long term effects are worth considering.

You speak of detrimental economic factors, but that seems like a strange arguement. That, to me, seems like saying we should never have moved from horse and buggy to cars, because it will hurt the horse and buggy aspect of our economy. Yes, our economy will fluctuate as different areas of technology shift, but as oil and coal and other fossil fuel businesses close, just as many progressive green businesses will open, providing wind, solar, or thermal power generation.

So I'm not so concerned about the economic effects of "going green" and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Even if you don't believe in man's contribution to global warming, surely we have to realize that fossil fuels aren't going to be around forever, and so why not begin the move to renewable low impact resources, rather than continuing down a road that we know will end?

Not to mention the political ramifications of no longer being beholden to oil corporations, and the countries which hold the oil reserves.

I would agree that research into 'green' is good, but mandating costs to force the implementation of laws to save the world from global warming are not the answer, yet. Until the science is proven that CO2 is the major or at least a significant portion of global warming, then a weighted approach would be more prudent.

Also what about the carbon sink question? You think it is hogwash of the oil companies also?

Sorry ed not aimed at you but Athenion ..

apologies

Originally posted by ChiKeyMonKey

You don't see hippies driving humvee's.

No, they are usually driving old VW camper vans that spew out a huge amount of exhaust fumes, and don't have converters or anything.
Then sit around with fires lit on warm summer evenings, puffing ganja and tobacco smoke into the air - not to mention all the CO2 from the constant "lets save the planet, man" talk.

Anyone catch this?




NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming

hmmm seems the word is NOT totally on board yet......

Originally posted by Athenion

Look, I was just clarifying why I said what I said. I've had many, many, many arguements with mauddib, and as far as I can tell, he's claimed time and time again that CO2 is not a pollutant, and not a greenhouse gas.

Excuse me?... Show me one statement which corroborates "your lie" that I have claimed CO2 is not a GHG....

I am sure you will find no such statement, because i have never said what you claim....

What I have said is that CO2 does not cause the warming which melatonin and you claim it causes...

BTW...we have not had "many, many, many arguments"... We have had a "few discussions" maybe three or four, and in all of them you make claims without providing any proof to back your claims, and if I am wrong show me that proof...

Originally posted by Athenion
So if you think that CO2 is only effecting 1-5% of our environment, why don't you think mitigating those ffects is a good idea? Even if you're right, and there are no immediate dangers, surely the long term effects are worth considering.

If CO2 is affecting the Earth's environment so bad, why is it that during higher levels of CO2 on Earth's atmosphere plant life flourished, and even animals have thrived?....

Currently the Earth has some of the lower levels of CO2 that have existed throughout the history of the Earth.

Originally posted by Athenion
You speak of detrimental economic factors, but that seems like a strange arguement. That, to me, seems like saying we should never have moved from horse and buggy to cars, because it will hurt the horse and buggy aspect of our economy. Yes, our economy will fluctuate as different areas of technology shift, but as oil and coal and other fossil fuel businesses close, just as many progressive green businesses will open, providing wind, solar, or thermal power generation.

...first of all noone is saying that we shouldn't try to find new power sources, just that the exagerated claims made by some, and the drastic changes which apparently you and some others want is not viable, as every aspect of infraestructure on Earth depends heavily on oil, and the lives of billions of people depend on oil.... hence we can't just "drop oil derivatives, and byproducts and live happily ever after"...

We don't even have fleets of "hybrid trucks", much less any other viable source of power for transporting, or the production of food and goods.

Solar cars don't produce enough energy, hydrogen cars/water cars still give us a lot of problems and will release vast amounts of water vapor, which is a much worse GHG than CO2.

There have been some progress into alternative fuel sources, but we are still a long ways from changing the need for the world of oil.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Muaddib]

I wonder if GORE ever had a reaction to this rebuttal of his scientifically challenges book and movie.

Will he ever admit that he was wrong?

Will it further his agenda?


Wow - how ignorant the public is or at least that is what I thought.

Wait there may be hope yet...





The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested


And how about this for a conclusion?

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

Or this even,

People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science
Sir David Read
Royal Society

So do you all still think its man made?

4 years later and the science leads one to be leary of that assumption.

And the theory looses even more steam, it was a VERY COOL summer this year.

Record cold everywhere, here, Europe,...still believe in global warming? Maybe we should be worried about an ice age first.....

I feel so vindicated with this weeks news.


I had asked about the olives in Germany and yet the alarmists would not even give a reason, I asked why the global ice packs are melting on Mars, etc etc...


Still want your Carbon tax? What if it gets really cold? Can the US tax the world for us putting excess carbon to induce Global Warming?


Ahhhhh....nice week actually.

Seems I was correct once again.


Greta - really? I wrote this before she was born!