My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by moyself

in my first post, it says that humans have very little effect on it.

"Very little?" That doesn't sound like a very precise measurement. Is that "very little" metric, or "very little" in SI?

Originally Posted by moyself

Want some proof of this? I happen to have some.

Yes. Please share your sources and cite your evidence.

Originally Posted by moyself

the following is taken from sciencedaily dot com(I would give the link but I don't have 10 posts yet

He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change.

Thank you. I am familiar with the IPCC. Also, please note that 1995 is more than 12 years ago, as it's now 2008. Several new and updated versions are now available of the work done by the IPCC.

Please note also that the IPCC doesn't do research, the bring together research from thousands of peer-reviewed articles and thousands of scientists, and from those collective sources form a meta-article with conclusions.

Originally Posted by moyself

In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide,

5% is huge! It's about systems and equilibrium, and 5% is MORE than enough to screw up an equilibrium and put a system out of balance.

Originally Posted by moyself

then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

Your opinion means little to me, as you are clearly not very well informed or educated on the matter. Can I change 5% of the air in your bedroom to toxic nerve gas? By your own account, it's difficult to see how this would have an effect.

[The D.S.]

I would like to congratulate InfiniteNow on making me laugh harder than I have ever laughed in a while at his response to the previous post. Wel done, well done indeed. Toxic nerve gas...(chuckles).

I would like to point out something interesting. At my university the professor asked how many people thought Global Warming was a hoax. HALF the class raised their hands and I was enraged by such ignorance. At that point I took it unto myself to stand up for people like us, here at hypography, were science and reason play a major role in our lives.

I, with great pleasure, informed everyone EXACTLY why Global Warming is real and that I wished they stop listening to idiots that think scientists make these things up for a good laugh at society. It was harsh, yet effective at getting my point across that they should think twice before saying they know something again.

Just thought I'd drop that in and by the way, I wouldnt doubt it if the classroom I was in could be mirrored to resemmble most of America.

[REASON]

There is a concerted effort by right wing conservatives, many of whom are deeply religious, to perpetuate the notion that global warming is nothing but hype. I hear this constantly on conservative talk radio, one of the primary means by which disinformation is disseminated nationally by talk show hosts that are not experts in climatology, nor even readily familiar with the work of scientists.

It's been a mystery to me as to why it is so important for them to continually cast doubt on the science, which is all they actually do in regards to this issue. They don't provide any alternate theories for the rapid increase in the mean global temperature over the last several decades. They talk about how cold it's been in places this winter and then scoff at the notion of global warming, which only demonstrates their ignorance. They claim that the real motivation of science is nothing but protectionism of government grants. They don't provide any alternate explanation for the rapid disappearance of glacial and polar ice. They don't reference qualified experts in the field of study. They don't attempt to refute the actual data that has been compiled by climatology consortiums such as the IPCC. They do link it to the liberal wacko Al Gore, in an effort to generate a negative emotional appeal to those they seek to influence.

What is this all about for them? What is actually at stake if they were to acknowledge the validity of the science? What drives their resistance?

I believe these questions are very legitimate to this thread because they go directly to why people in the United States have shaky or no beliefs in the reality of human generated climate change. And I specifically say United States because I believe that polling indicates we rank near, if not at the top with the percentage of people who reject global warming science among the major civilized nations in the world.

Could it be that these people don't want to have to take any responsibility? Is it just too difficult to have to change our way of life? Are they protecting the interests of the fossil fuel industry that may stand to lose profits if we switch to non-poluting energy, maybe because they have investments at stake? Maybe it's just because it has been spun as a liberal effort, and they have been convinced that everything liberal is evil. Maybe they believe that god has given us this Earth to use up as we please, and he won't let anything bad happen to it that will harm his beloved children.

I don't know for sure. There is never a reason given other than to just say global warming science is exaggerated. Why? Do any of the potential explanations above provide adequate justification to continue to do nothing?

I just don't get it. Any ideas? Maybe moyself would be willing to shed some light since he has obviously bought into the notion that it is all hype.

[freeztar]

I believe InfiniteNow has addressed this post well, but I'd like to add a few things

Originally Posted by moyself

Want some proof of this? I happen to have some.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

Belief is not proof, not even close. Anyone claiming to be able to *prove* one way or the other is obviously out of touch with reality and the scientific method.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

Have a look at this site:
TRENDS: CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

Since 1751 roughly 315 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s. The 2004 global fossil-fuel CO2 emission estimate, 7910 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 5.4% increase from 2003.

So the number is actually around 8 Btons of CO2 annually, according to 2004 data.

[moyself]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

"Very little?" That doesn't sound like a very precise measurement. Is that "very little" metric, or "very little" in SI?



Yes. Please share your sources and cite your evidence.



Thank you. I am familiar with the IPCC. Also, please note that 1995 is more than 12 years ago, as it's now 2008. Several new and updated versions are now available of the work done by the IPCC.

Please note also that the IPCC doesn't do research, the bring together research from thousands of peer-reviewed articles and thousands of scientists, and from those collective sources form a meta-article with conclusions.




5% is huge! It's about systems and equilibrium, and 5% is MORE than enough to screw up an equilibrium and put a system out of balance.




Your opinion means little to me, as you are clearly not very well informed or educated on the matter. Can I change 5% of the air in your bedroom to toxic nerve gas? By your own account, it's difficult to see how this would have an effect.

You forgot one thing... this is about 5% of the CO2 only. Since CO2 makes up only about .0360(source taken from searching "element percentages in atmostphere" on google, clicking first link, then clicking the link on that page). When you find out what percent of CO2 we cause out of all the atmosphere, you find that it we account for 0.000018% of the CO2 in the air. So I'm guessing you could change 0.000018% of the air in my room to toxic nerve gas, and I would be okay. If .000018% of my room was filled with ebola... it might be different

[REASON]

Originally Posted by moyself

You forgot one thing... this is about 5% of the CO2 only. Since CO2 makes up only about .0360(source taken from searching "element percentages in atmostphere" on google, clicking first link, then clicking the link on that page). When you find out what percent of CO2 we cause out of all the atmosphere, you find that it we account for 0.000018% of the CO2 in the air. So I'm guessing you could change 0.000018% of the air in my room to toxic nerve gas, and I would be okay.

Wait a minute, according to your own figures, do we account for 5% of CO2, or .000018% of CO2?

Of course, this doesn't take into considereration other greenhouse gases such as methane which are even better than CO2 at absorbing solar radiation.

But let's keep the subject slightly more on the surface. If our contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is so insignificant as to have no real impact, what alternatively do you propose is responsible for the highly accelerated rise in the mean temperature of the Earth over the last, say, 20 years, and the rapid disappearance of both glacial and polar ice? What is a more rational explanation that you can provide to explain these easily observable changes? And you're not going to get away with saying something like "cycles" because there has to be something specific that has changed in the system that is yielding these dramatic effects.

I'm sure the scientific community has refused to consider any other alternatives over the last several decades out of fear of losing their grants, so obviously it is going to take experts like yourself and Rush Limbaugh to provide the answers. What say you?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by REASON

...But let's keep the subject slightly more on the surface. If our contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is so insignificant as to have no real impact, what alternatively do you propose is responsible for the highly accelerated rise in the mean temperature of the Earth over the last, say, 20 years, and the rapid disappearance of both glacial and polar ice? What is a more rational explanation that you can provide to explain these easily observable changes? And you're not going to get away with saying something like "cycles" because there has to be something specific that has changed in the system that is yielding these dramatic effects. ...

If I may go below the surface, underwater volcanism is my proposition. I am asiduously pursuing supportive information, which is by everyone's account, seriously lacking in hard data from the ocean floors. Time will tell.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by moyself

You forgot one thing... this is about 5% of the CO2 only. Since CO2 makes up only about .0360(source taken from searching "element percentages in atmostphere" on google, clicking first link, then clicking the link on that page).

You forgot the percentage sign. It is 0.0365% of the atmosphere calculated by the PPM of CO2 in 1998 shown here.

When you find out what percent of CO2 we cause out of all the atmosphere, you find that it we account for 0.000018% of the CO2 in the air.

Your math checks out here. I got 1.825 x 10^-5.

So I'm guessing you could change 0.000018% of the air in my room to toxic nerve gas, and I would be okay. If .000018% of my room was filled with ebola... it might be different

I think you are missing the point that InfiniteNow was trying to make.
Just because something is a small percentage of the total does not logically imply that it has no significant effect.

Analogies such as nerve gas and ebola are not useful when considering CO2 in the atmosphere. I suggest studying the IPCC data some more. Why do you think they make a connection between a potential 200ppm CO2 increase and the related environmental effects?

[moyself]

We account for 5% of CO2. And also, I'm not an expert as you said in your last line. The warming cycle(yes I am saying it even though you didn't want me to) started in about 1850, which is too early for us to blame the burning of fossil fuels. Also, there has been data recorded that shows that average temperatures were higher than it is now, hundreds of years ago. As for the rapid glacial melting, there are also some glaciers that are actually expanding. There are many websites that explain this... Once I find a good one I will post it.

Ok here is one. This site clearly believes in global warming, and they explain that glaciers are affected more by other things that global warming.

Global Warming May Trigger Ice Sheet Growth

Also, do you have a good website with the IPCC data? If you do it would be helpful

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by moyself

Also, do you have a good website with the IPCC data? If you do it would be helpful

You might check the IPCC website itself.


IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



The reports are split thusly:


Assessment Report 4 (AR4) - Synthesis Report:
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"

Working Group I - The Physical Science Basis:
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"

Working Group II - Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability:
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group II Report "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"

Working Group III - Mitigation of Climate Change:
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change"




Each report is available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish, and Russian, and hard copies of the report are available from the Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge University Press - IPCC - Climate Change 2007



Click the following link to see a webcast of the press conference with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (which took place on November 17, 2007):

http://www.ipcc.ch/audio-video/webca.../ipccvideo.wmv