My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[engineerdude]

Well, I started this thread a while back, I looked at the first few replies then I forgot about it. I was happy to see so many people sounding off, and having interest.

I treated global warming as sort of a hobby last summer, and I did some thorough research and literature reviews to try and figure this all out. I kept an open mind, and just looked at things from an analytical, scientific manner.

To sum up my findings, there is absolutely no scientific basis for the idea that people have anything to do with global warming. I have encountered many caring, concerned people who espouse anthropomorphic global warming, but not a one of them can actually back up anything they say with hard science. I am flabbergasted and disappointed that the Nobel people would be involved in this effort. And I now cringe whenever I hear lawmakers discussing possible solutions to what, as far as I can tell, is a purely imaginary problem.

I have scanned through the numerous replies and posts on this thread. To all of you who believe in the popular theory of global warming, please do me a favor:

Post one item of evidence that you have that is in favor of global warming. Don't write a book, and please don't list everything you believe in, just list them one at a time and give me a little time to read and respond. Based on my notes, current science debunks every thing I can find that people have put out in favor of man-made climate change. Please post an idea, and if I can't disprove it in a sentence or two, I would be very happy to be reassured that our civilization has not gone insane, that I have in fact missed something.

[Moontanman]

[QUOTE=goku;244541and speaking of turtles, i think box turtles migrate.[/QUOTE]


Yes speaking of Box turtles, I raise and breed them, box turtles not only do not migrate they stay in close proximity to where they are born and if taken away from that place they will try to go back. The do not migrate. so in addition to all the other silliness you insist on interjecting you are wrong about box turtles as well.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Well, I started this thread a while back, I looked at the first few replies then I forgot about it. I was happy to see so many people sounding off, and having interest.

I treated global warming as sort of a hobby last summer, and I did some thorough research and literature reviews to try and figure this all out. I kept an open mind, and just looked at things from an analytical, scientific manner.

To sum up my findings, there is absolutely no scientific basis for the idea that people have anything to do with global warming. I have encountered many caring, concerned people who espouse anthropomorphic global warming, but not a one of them can actually back up anything they say with hard science. I am flabbergasted and disappointed that the Nobel people would be involved in this effort. And I now cringe whenever I hear lawmakers discussing possible solutions to what, as far as I can tell, is a purely imaginary problem.

I have scanned through the numerous replies and posts on this thread. To all of you who believe in the popular theory of global warming, please do me a favor:

Post one item of evidence that you have that is in favor of global warming. Don't write a book, and please don't list everything you believe in, just list them one at a time and give me a little time to read and respond. Based on my notes, current science debunks every thing I can find that people have put out in favor of man-made climate change. Please post an idea, and if I can't disprove it in a sentence or two, I would be very happy to be reassured that our civilization has not gone insane, that I have in fact missed something.

Ok, I'll bite, I used to think like you but I was persuaded to the Global warming side. so here goes.

How about the retreating glaciers, polar ice and the rise in CO2 levels that track the retreat of glaciers the melting of polar ice reasonably close?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Well, I started this thread a while back, I looked at the first few replies then I forgot about it. I was happy to see so many people sounding off, and having interest.

I treated global warming as sort of a hobby last summer, and I did some thorough research and literature reviews to try and figure this all out. I kept an open mind, and just looked at things from an analytical, scientific manner.

To sum up my findings, there is absolutely no scientific basis for the idea that people have anything to do with global warming.

I must ask, what "thorough research and literature reviews" did you actually pursue. Whatever lead you to your conclusion, assuming such hardy research,would certainly be of much interest to many of us here.

In other words, don't just say it is bunk, debunk it! It's not only scientifically apropos, it is also a site rule.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Post one item of evidence that you have that is in favor of global warming.

I've posted this before, but I will do so again since you asked.

A.) CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs long wavelength energy leading to a retention of heat energy in the atmosphere that would normally escape into space.
B.) Mankind's emissions of CO2 plus natural emissions of CO2 are more than the earth's system absorbs each year, leading to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

If you have anything indicating either of these are not the case, please share

[engineerdude]

From Moontanman,

How about the retreating glaciers, polar ice and the rise in CO2 levels that track the retreat of glaciers the melting of polar ice reasonably close?

Thanks so much for talking with me. My response:

The science has certainly shown a distinct link between CO2 and global temperatures. The only question is, does CO2 affect global temperature or does global temperature affect CO2 levels?

The data people generally reference mostly comes from ice core samples done by the Vostok project. From this data, charts have been made that graph out temperature and CO2 changes over the last 650k years or so. One such chart is found here:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF..._400k_yrs.html

Take a look at the chart. The problem is that this chart is drawn backwards from what we are all used to seeing. In this chart, what happened first is on the right hand side, what occurred later is to the left. If you look closely at the chart, you can see that CO2 level lags temperature changes by a bit. There were times when temperature changed abruptly, and it took hundreds of years for CO2 to catch up.

Another source for this is the people who accumulated the actual data itself. To quote them, "ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciation" To paraphrase, this means that CO2 changes 600 to 1000 years after a significant change in temperature happens. The ice records demonstrate that changes in CO2 do not affect world temperature, but that temperature determines the levels of CO2 in the air.

The direct link to the Vostok data where I got this quote from is here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html

The vast majority of CO2 is removed from the air by the oceans, and people speculate that the ocean's efficiency to take up CO2 is decreased when the water gets warmer. But, for whatever reason, the ice core data clearly shows that from a cause-and-effect perspective, temperature is a cause and CO2 level is an effect.

As far as retreating glaciers and such, everyone agrees that the world is getting warmer. But the world has been far warmer in it's pre-SUV days than it is now - the Vikings named Greenland not as a joke, but because it was actually green when they landed there.

-Brian

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I must ask, what "thorough research and literature reviews" did you actually pursue. Whatever lead you to your conclusion, assuming such hardy research,would certainly be of much interest to many of us here.

In other words, don't just say it is bunk, debunk it! It's not only scientifically apropos, it is also a site rule.

Eh I've kept pretty good records, and I'd be happy to post a list of my sources - once I hit ten posts and can post links.

But, since we are all science-oriented people, let's follow the scientific method, as I have proposed. Post hypothesis supporting your arguments that people have anything to do with global warming, and if your idea cannot be proven false then we will assume it is correct. Despite best efforts by many theories like evolution and gravity continue to stand up to all criticism - let's see if Global Warming can do the same.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Eh I've kept pretty good records, and I'd be happy to post a list of my sources - once I hit ten posts and can post links.

But, since we are all science-oriented people, let's follow the scientific method, as I have proposed. Post hypothesis supporting your arguments that people have anything to do with global warming, and if your idea cannot be proven false then we will assume it is correct. Despite best efforts by many theories like evolution and gravity continue to stand up to all criticism - let's see if Global Warming can do the same.

Hey I asked specific questions is my post chopped liver? Lets hear your answer to it.

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

I've posted this before, but I will do so again since you asked.

A.) CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs long wavelength energy leading to a retention of heat energy in the atmosphere that would normally escape into space.
B.) Mankind's emissions of CO2 plus natural emissions of CO2 are more than the earth's system absorbs each year, leading to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

If you have anything indicating either of these are not the case, please share

Thanks for responding to me on this:

A) You are, of course, absolutely right that CO2 absorbs infrared. However, from a practical standpoint, there is basically zero CO2 in our atmosphere. The major "greenhouse gas" in our atmosphere is water vapor, at around 10,000 parts-per million (ppm) as compared to 400 ppm for CO2. A doubling or tripling in the amount of CO2 doesn't effect the overall level of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.

Consider the planet Mars, which has around 10 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth does. Mars is way cooler than Earth, and all the CO2 at Mars doesn't keep the nighttime temperature from dropping to -200 degrees C or so. Clearly, all the other stuff in Earth's air slow heat loss as well.

B) Historically, CO2 levels have periodically been way higher than they are now, in the days long before man discovered fire. Co2 levels rose and fell many times over our planet's history, and the system of CO2 contribution and removal has always been able to remove large levels. To say that we are overloading the Earth's complex feedback mechanisms is, as far as I can tell, without basis.

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Hey I asked specific questions is my post chopped liver? Lets hear your answer to it.

See my post a few spots above, above, I believe I fully responded.