Global Warming- Fact or Fiction?
 

NOTE: Yes, I know we've had a thread on this before, but the last time it was posted in was eight months ago. Plus, it's still a relavent debate, and has become more "high profile" with the release of Al Gore's new comedy... err, documentary.

What does everybody here think about the theory of global warming? Does it exist? If it exists, is it anthropogenic? Has it happened before? Didn't they warn us of a new Ice Age thirty years ago? Discuss.

As for my thoughts, well, my general opinion of the global warming theory matches the title of a certain show by Penn & Teller. I have read a novel, "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton, that, although intended as fiction, is partially based on real events, and uses actual charts from extremely reliable sources (Namely the United Nations, NASA, and arctic scientists, some of which believe in global warming) and in one of the chapters, completely eviscerated the environmentalists argument.

Crichtons Mini Penn and Teller Show:
First, they looked more closely at the famous "hockey stick" graph, and showed that when looked at closely, despite that fact that between 1940 and 1970, C02 went up, temperature went down. Also, the hockey stick is a possibly deliberate half truth, as when looked at the total rise in temperature over 120 years is;

1/3rd of a degree.

Even that will probably die down, as temperature fluctuate over hundreds of years.

My Own Thoughts:
Also, global warming theory does not consider that to geology, 1 year is like 1 second.

Lastly, although scientists supposedly (emphasis on supposedly) found that temperatures was the hottest in 100000 years, figures can be twisted. Who funded the research? Was it peer reviewed? Did similar results occur in other tests? Science has shown that expectations of results can actually influence their outcome (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind_experiment). Is it not possible, indeed plausible, that the scientists involved were expecting such results? It is because of political pressure and media sensationalism that such stringent procedures are employed in the selection of jury members. Surely such an effect can affect even men and women of science?

I rest my boring monologue.

But then any reputable scientist who's read Crichton's book points out that what few statistics he mentions have been carefully selected, pruned and taken out of context.

My point is this: I'm not a meteorological scientist. Neither are you. But the entire basis for the scientific method is that consensus rules. Taking into account that 90% of the scientific community believes that global warming is a problem and that most of the other 10% have been sponsored by individuals/companies that have a vested interest in polluting the atmosphere, I'm going to have to go with the majority on this one.

Even if there was some real doubt on global warming, I don't particularly want to take the risk. We should do everything possible to cut CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) emission. And if it turns out we're wrong and global warming is not human-caused, at least we'll have a less polluted planet.

100 years ago, the majority of scientists, politicians, and even some Nobel Prize winners supported eugenics. 1000 years ago, the same majority accepted that the world was flat. And 10000 years ago, most people probably thought that there was nothing outside of their continent. You are using argumentum ad populum. A good proportion of American citizens believed, just three years ago, the Saddam Hussein had direct involvement with 9/11. Also have you stopped to consider the enormous cost of the Kyoto Protocol? (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps..._Count_Up.htm). As of this post, more than US$ 242,049,412,576 has been lost to this Protocol in the globe economy. All to reduce temperature by 2050 by 0.002510145 °C. It would cost 100 trillion US$ to lower the Earth's temperature by ONE degree by 2050. All this, on a problem that may not even exist?

Also, haven't people been predicting the end of the world for millenia? Can you cite even one example where it has come true? Not one?

EDIT: Also, I'd like to see a source for that 90% figure.

Crichton's book used science that was fatally flawed. And he was remarkably selective about the evidence that he used, anyone should have been able to see it just by reading the book.

I found that Crichton's fans were quite bewildered, he used to write about fantastic stories, eg Jurassic Park, and although the science there wasn't correct either, it was used to spin an entertaining tale. State of Fear was little more than political propaganda.

The graphs of the rising temperature of earth is the average global temperature. Data used in the book was of particular locations, where temperatures are often dictated by the local microclimate.

Punta Arenas was one such location (the tip of South America). It showed a cooling trend, but some warming since 1970. That was used as a pivotal plot device ("There's your global warming!")

Had the story taken the characters to the nearby station of Santa Cruz Aeropuerto, the data there showed a distinct warming trend. That in itself is not in any way proof of Global Warming, but neither are the recordings at Punta Arenas.

As I said, it is global trend. That is why it is called global warming.

There was also commentry on Dr James Hansen's testimony to congress when the issue was first brought to their attention and catapulted into the public conciousness. Crichton claimed that the graphs had been exaggerated 300%. Even if they had been, that is still a warming trend, is it not? In fact, Hansen provided three different scenarios, of which "B" turned out to the closest.

http://www.grist.org/advice/books/20...ton_figure.jpg

Early on in the book, a character points out that although carbon dioxide levels were increasing between the years 1940-1970, the world was cooling. He asks then how we know that it is causing the glode to heat up. A good question, but greenhouse gasses are not the only factors in climate change. We could not possibly track them all, as we don't know everything about how the Earth works. Volcanic aerosols, solar irradience, sulphate and nitrate aerosols and changes in the usage of the land all lead to reduction in the average global temperature. Unfortunately things have caught up with it.

Regional patterns of change, epecially in 1930, show evidence that can be linked to internal variability and the afforementioned "forcings".

As it happens, the book is a work of fiction, based loosely on some questionable evidence. There was another book recently that worked much the same way, caused a stir in the community. I can't remember what it... Ah yes, that's it. The Da Vinci Code.

But the appendices attached to the end of the story are more worrying. Here is an intersesting link Crichton made.

"Crichton uses a rather curious train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th century eugenics movement. Eugenics, he notes, was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations. Today, global warming is studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations. Aha!

Presumably Crichton doesn't actually believe that foundation-supported academic research is ipso facto misguided, even evil, but that is certainly the impression left by this peculiar linkage."

He also stated at the end "Everyone has an agenda. Except me."

My BS alarm goes off now. Of course he has an agenda! Selling his books! He uses a current issue to create the story, as is his right, and makes it controversal to get more coverage. He also is trying to push these... republican views on his readers. No agenda?

Yes, it exists.

Was that contrast in post length deliberate, MF? ;)

I think it would be naive to believe that it doesn't exist.

I hope it exists, or what the fuck am I studying for the next four years?

Actually, I think it naive to follow whatever disaster the media is hyping. Non white immigrants taking over the country, global cooling, global warming. Besides, A: Crichton was obviously being sarcastic at the end. B: Well, i'm fairly sure the science in "An Inconvenient Truth" isn't exactly Harvard level either. The point is, even if "global warming" exists, things like it have been happening for millions of years. The Earth is not a static entity that never changes except when something intelligent intervenes. It is practically the worlds most advanced computer program.

Its a fact if you believe scientific consensus and data, fiction if you believe corporate rat****ing and politicians with a vested interest in doing nothing about global warming.
Have you even seen An Inconvenient Truth or are you just shooting your mouth off?

In answer to your question, no. But I know enough to know that neither I, Crichton, or Gore are meteorologists. "Consensus"? 15000 scientists, many of which are certified meteorologists (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/Publicat.../petition.html) (http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news...9980504pg1.htm) (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1998/apr/98042405.html), signed a petition against the wantonly wasteful Kyoto Protocol, which has already sucked hundreds of billions out of the world economy.

So you're saying it's okay if entire species are wiped out and millions of people are displaced because "things like it have been happening for millions of years"? Well guess what, buster: for millions of years the inhabitants of this planet have been unable to do anything about it. Today there's a strong possibility that we can so I say we should do everything possible to protect ourselves against this threat.

You're right. But the cost to relocate hundreds of millions of people around the planet is going to be far more. In any case, your thesis is about as logical as saying "Well, our country hasn't been invaded lately so we might just get rid of the army. I don't think we're going to need them any time soon. Now who wants to join me as I bury my head in the sand??

Unfortuneately, I read that in an article and don't have a source just now. I will try and find one.

Aside from all that: Kudos to Bullet Magnet for providing the well-researched, coherent reply that I wasn't capable of. :D

But how exactly is one supposed to prevent a natural cycle? Can one prevent hurricanes, earthquakes, or meteorites? I will concede that global warming may be happening, but I still think that it is natural and next to impossible to stop.
EDIT: Also, cows contribute dozens of times more than humans do to carbon dioxide emissions. Admittely, the large cow population is partially due to human overbreeding, but if, as you say "for millions of years the inhabitants of this planet have been unable to do anything about it", then I agree. I do, however, think that it is extremely unlikely that humanity can possibly stop natural processes like global warming.

Scientists are developing an anti-biotic that will kill the bacteria in cows bowels that create methane (not carbon dioxide), which will significantly reduce their affect on global warming.

I did not know that. Thank you for telling me that. Also, sorry about the carbon dioxide/methane confusion.

Anyway, I think the rest of you guys won this one. You all argued very well, and I at times struggled to hold my case. I now concede that global warming is real, but I still think that it is a natural process that has happened before. And I think that, while humans do contribute something towards it, the contribution is not as large as commonly thought. And, while I support efforts to save the planet from its own processes, I think that sometimes its futile to argue with Mother Nature.

But do you also concede that the world is round?

Reductio ad absurdum. There is still a debate, regardless of how much environmentalists try to supress this fact, over the cause of global warming.

Urgh. Everywhere I look it’s overkill. How about we just cut down on the number of cattle we farm? I’m sure the cattle would be appreciative, too.

I don’t think there’s anything we can do to prevent global warming from ever happening, but we should try to reduce the anthropogenic factors contributing to it as much as possible. That will give people more time to consider what is to be done should there actually be a “Coming Global Superstorm” or just profound climate change.

The way I see it, there’s no point in trying to prevent a Mass Extinction. To do so is pure human sentimentality. But at the same time, it would be reckless to give up conservation of species and biomes that could teach us so much more about the world. It’s a tough call.

What debate? I see hundreds, if not thousands, of trained pro climateologists and environmentalists and data on one hand saying "Yes, global warning exists" and on the other hand I see a bunch of flakes and cranks and corporate cronies and career politicians with a vested interest in keeping the "debate" alive saying it doesn't. I'm sorry, but I'm going to go with the overwhelming consensus of people who actually know what they're talking about.
Appealing to authority isn't always fallacious.

I was not referring to a debate over global warming's existence. That debate is undoubtedbly over, and I was a fool for not realising that. But, there is still a debate about global warmings cause. Is it anthropogenic? Is it caused by other animals? Is it caused by natural occurances like volcanoes or earthquakes? Or is it simply a natural cycle, like those which have been happening for billions of years?

I read recently that, based on past cycles, Earth should be cooling down into a mini-ice age right about now. Not sure how reputable that source was though.

Hey, I agree with you. But I also say that we should fight the battles that we have a chance of winning. :D

The earth has been warming, and while all the factors you mention do contribute to global warming, isn't it pretty obvious that human activity is a very big, if not the biggest, contributor to it?

No. From the data I have seen, human activites are contributing maybe 2% to global warming. Volcanoes, cows, and dust storms contribute orders of magnitude more than humans.

Yes - but WHO controls the cows and volcanoes, though??

Slightly OT: Just got back from seeing An Inconvenient Truth. I thought it was very touching and well made, and quite convincing in bits, but still think that humans are not the major contributors to global warming. I think the Earth's cycles are like onions. Layers within layers, cycles within cycles. For instance, the meteor and possibly volcanoes that killed the dinosaurs threw up massive amounts of C02 and pollution.This had long lasty, deadly effects upon the environment and ecosystem. Also, recall the numerous mass extinctions throughout the history of this planet. Even 65000 years is not that long when you're planet is 5000000000 years old, orders of magnitude above the first figure. This current spike is like the dinosaur meteor and other mass extinctions, in that it marks the end of a current minicycle and begins a new one in the current megacycle, which will probably continue for the next billion years.

On Topic: Humans do overbreed cows to an extent, but as far as I can tell, there are no humans controlling volcanic activity, which makes about as much sense as trying to control earthquakes.

What has a chance meteor impact got to do with natural climatic evolution? Also, even if it is 98% non‐anthropogenic, why does that absolve us of having to cope with it in whatever way?

Two words. Fluctuating orbits. Its quite natural to have a meteor every now and then, given that there are already several regularily passing Terra, but not hitting it. Although they are rarely extinction level, and often burn up in the atmosphere, every so often, maybe once every 50 million years, a big one comes along and majorly screws up the ecosystem. Hell, greenhouse gases might even be able to protect us better from that, in which case we're in a catch-22 until we develop some kind of huge scattering laser able to not only smash an asteroid or comet, but make sure the smaller pieces are too small to still really affect Terra's atmosphere.

The thing is, if humans are only a tiny factor in global warming, then that means it's mostly natural. And unless you're some kind of hyperintelligent extraterrestial, or one of the humans near the end of "The Last Question", you ain't gonna stop Mother Earth's natural cycles, no more than you can stop winter. And if the human factor is small, then spending hundreds of billions of dollars on an extremely small factor is just flushing money down the toilet and screwing the economy severely.

Thank you for telling me what a meteor is. What I’m saying is that it’s an external factor, and not in the least bit dependant on Earth’s bio‐/geo‐/atmosphere. It doesn’t form part of a natural cycle, it’s an interruption to it.

So what are you suggesting we do? Sit around wondering whether we’re going to be wiped out or not? Or even sit around trying to blissfully pretend there isn’t a problem? Your attitude seems to be that Global Warming is none of our concern, when it’s the biggest concern facing terrestrial life in millennia.

While it is a concern, focusing on a tiny part of the problem, and expending huge amounts of resources on that tiny part, isn't going to help much. The economic destruction far outways the extremely small effect it will have on the disaster.

Then again, what is more important? The economy, or our ability to survive on the only planet we can.

Obviously, Mother Earth. But even the most drastic cuts will barely make a dent in the vast array of other factors influencing global warming. At most, I'd say it would be slowed by 20%, ands thats if you count the influence of cows.

Ah, but are you taking into account Solar Flare activity and Chaos Theory?

Well, if those are an influence in global warming, then that proves my point of it being nearly impossible to stop, being a natural process. If you can't stop earthquakes, but merely prepare and try to soften them up (in a way that doesn't end up causing nearly as much damage as the earthquake), you sure as hell ain't gonna stop solar flares or the fundamental laws of thermodynamics and entropy. Or chaos theory, which is related.

What about an Einstein-Rosenburg Bridge?

Far, far beyond current technological capabilities. We've barely started atom making, for goodness sake. Sure, that might set off mini black holes, but not all black holes lead anywhere except to absorbtion by their singularity. You might as well consider a Dyson swarm, Dyson sphere, or ringing up Vogons to move Earth out of the way.

I was about to suggest a Dyson Sphere.

What about altering the Earths orbit by constructing an artificial moon?

Again, far ahead of what current technology can accomplish. They are still working on the International Space Station after around 10 years, and that is less than 1000th of the size of an object qualifying as a moon. Let alone an object or series of objects 1 AU in diameter.

Actually, all you need to do is grab a largeish asteroid and stick a huge booster onnit.

Again, consider the amounts of fuel, distance, difficulty in navigation, potential accidents, and cargo size issues. It takes millions of dollars to even travel to the Moon, let alone the asteroid belt. In anycase, how would giving Terra a second moon do anything but majorly screw up the tides, likely making the problem even worse and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

But what if you TERRAFORM the new moon and live there? then noone will die^^.