Total Posts:100|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is the Global Warming debate really over?

cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 9:38:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You hear all of the time that the debate on global warming and its causes is over, which I think is absolute junk. No debate is ever over without incontrovertible evidence that adheres to one theory. Beyond the fact that climate is changing, there's nothing solid, and this video illustrates that.

--------INTERESTING KEY POINTS OF VIDEO-------
*Video cites ice core sample data as showing that temperature rise causes CO2 rise, and not the other way around (something I've debated for YEARS on forums too!), and uses Al Gore's very graph to illustrate this.

*Video talks about the politics and funding of global warming research as tampering with conclusions

*Video cites graphs that link solar activity with temperature rise with much better best fit lines than are provided with CO2and temperature rise over recent history*

*Video cites inaccurate claims by environmentalists, such that Malaria will spread north from African nations, despite the fact that a half degree cooler world still contained a Malaria outbreak in Russia.

*Video talks about computer modeling and its ignoring of solar output and making of multiple assumptions, and the media bias of which models to use.

*Video talks about the push for expensive forms of energy in the third world which hinders or prevents development of those countries.
-------------------------------------------------

Now, just to get personals aside, I'll go ahead and give a brief stance on my position on the Global Warming thing.

Of course, the warming trend is obvious. I believe humans have probably caused a minor percentage of the warming, maybe around 1%.

Saying that, I believe nearly all warming detected is based on solar output and surface/cloud albedo, with greenhouse gas warming probably being constant.

I learned a couple of things from the video, but this video holds most of my positions. I think it's a great
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 3:28:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Awesome! Loved it. Thanks!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 3:49:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
*Video cites ice core sample data as showing that temperature rise causes CO2 rise, and not the other way around (something I've debated for YEARS on forums too!),

It's nice when obvious science is ignored so that only part of the story is selected and preferred.

First off: CO2 absorbs IR radiation. You can prove this to yourself with a quick trip to a local college. Ask them to show you an infrared spectrometer (they have them in just about every lab). Have them run a "background scan". See the huge absorption due to CO2? Where do you think that energy absorbed goes?

So we KNOW CO2 absorbs infrared energy. This was shown about 160 years ago or so and isn't controversial at all. It's a greenhouse gas. It's built into the motion of the O=C=O bonds and molecular motion.

NOW, your favorite part that CO2 lags temperature rise is also a thing CO2 can do! A gas dissolved in water (like the ocean) can exsolve when the temperature goes up!

Just because CO2 can lag says NOTHING about it's ability to lead.

CO2, being a greenhouse gas, can raise temperatures and higher temperatures can cause CO2 to exsolve out of solution and increase in the atmosphere.

CO2 CAN DO BOTH OF THESE THINGS! It's an amazing molecule.

Now if you want to make a case that CO2 cannot CAUSE an increase in temperature you'll have to overturn about 150 years or more of physical chemistry.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:53:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's nice when obvious science is ignored so that only part of the story is selected and preferred.

I don't think any documentary ever gives the full story, including Al Gore's.

First off: CO2 absorbs IR radiation. You can prove this to yourself with a quick trip to a local college. Ask them to show you an infrared spectrometer (they have them in just about every lab). Have them run a "background scan". See the huge absorption due to CO2? Where do you think that energy absorbed goes?

I think that everyone, both the skeptics and the believers accept this fact. I don't think there's any doubt that the greenhouse effect exists.

What's ignored is that nearly all of this 'background' distortion comes from the temperature of the instrument being used (why they use liquid nitrogen), and the humidity in the air. CO2 is a very minor player in this.

So we KNOW CO2 absorbs infrared energy. This was shown about 160 years ago or so and isn't controversial at all. It's a greenhouse gas. It's built into the motion of the O=C=O bonds and molecular motion.

NOW, your favorite part that CO2 lags temperature rise is also a thing CO2 can do! A gas dissolved in water (like the ocean) can exsolve when the temperature goes up!

Just because CO2 can lag says NOTHING about it's ability to lead.

CO2, being a greenhouse gas, can raise temperatures and higher temperatures can cause CO2 to exsolve out of solution and increase in the atmosphere.

CO2 CAN DO BOTH OF THESE THINGS! It's an amazing molecule.

I have yet to see a graph to see CO2 lead the way.

It is an amazing molecule. It causes crops to grow more readily in places they wouldn't otherwise grow. It's not dangerous gas unless in concentrations thousands of times what we see now.

Now if you want to make a case that CO2 cannot CAUSE an increase in temperature you'll have to overturn about 150 years or more of physical chemistry.

The research actually shows how insignificant CO2 is. The Earth has been warming since before the Industrial Revolution coming out of an extremely cool period. It's been much warmer tan now many, many times in the last few thousand years.

Also, the debate might be meaningless as the temperature has almost completely flattened since 1998 according to the US Meteological Survey 5 year averages. Spikes still continue to show records, but the records are just a small bit above 1998's record. We're in for a temperature decrease or stabilization is what seems to be trending from the data.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 2:02:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I did forget to address something though:

Basically,the fact that CO2 absorb energy is one thing, but the Earth isn't just influenced by CO2 absorption. There are still a great many things we don't understand about the climate, which is why or predictions and even examining of past events have huge errors associated with them sometimes. The energy absorbed by CO2 is distributed, re-radiated multiple times, released, absorbed into the oceans, aids in water vapor (which clouds require, which have a net cooling effect). There are many balances that prevent runaway feedbacks, nd CO2 doesn't seem to be a huge player in those balances despite the mantra of "CO2 absorbs energy!" as if it's that simple.

the fact that we reproduce CO2 and don't return it is also a ridiculous argument. Volcanos don't absorb CO2 directly from the atmosphere, and it spews it out. Dead animals and vegetation give off more CO2 than human emissions, and that isn't returned directly by the dead biomass. There are tons of things.

Also, if you look at it, most of the CO2 isn't even trapped in fossil fuels. Most of it is in limestone, something we probably couldn't get any major energy out of breaking down.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:05:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that everyone, both the skeptics and the believers accept this fact. I don't think there's any doubt that the greenhouse effect exists.

But it always fascinates me how the skeptics jump ONLY on the "lagging", never note the leading.

If you acquiesce that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then it must be able to lead as well.

Selectively ignoring this is what I'm talking about here.


What's ignored is that nearly all of this 'background' distortion comes from the temperature of the instrument being used (why they use liquid nitrogen), and the humidity in the air. CO2 is a very minor player in this.

Well, again, if one ignores the paleoclimate data then one can say this. But paleoclimate data confirm our estimates of climate sensitivity of CO2.

I have yet to see a graph to see CO2 lead the way.

Oh, OK, well then HERE YA GO:
http://www.nature.com...

Enjoy!


The research actually shows how insignificant CO2 is.

Article after article after article shows that CO2 climate sensitivity is in line with the IPCC estimates, so yeah, you're right. CO2 is reasonably important. But moreso now because humans are putting gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere at far faster rates than the natural carbon cycle (enough to shift the stable isotope composition of atmospheric CO2 measurably with a big ol' human fingerprint on it.)

Also, the debate might be meaningless as the temperature has almost completely flattened since 1998 according to the US Meteological Survey 5 year averages. Spikes still continue to show records, but the records are just a small bit above 1998's record. We're in for a temperature decrease or stabilization is what seems to be trending from the data.

The problem I have with this argument is that scientists NEVER ignore the natural forcings. Just read the IPCC some time. They are explicitly in there. Natural forcings still play a role.

AND I must warn against drawing conclusions based on "selective windowing" of time series data. That's just bad statistical form. It's a tell-tale sign of a bad analysis.

The important thing is the overall trend. Which is up.

And interestingly people who do this for a living have found that natural cycles are insufficient to explain the warming we have seen in the latter part of this century. But fit a model using anthropogenic factors along with the natural forcings et viola! A very good (and very sobering) fit is attained.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:18:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
of course its not over! 60% of geologists (WHO STUDY PAST TEMPERATURE RECORDS) say it is not over.

But the come back is "97% blah blah blah". I am mainly against using poll numbers (even the one I cited) as I think appealing to the authority or "consensus" is a fallacy.

"A scientist is never certain." ~ Richard Feynman

I also recently read two books on the topic, and the debate is NOT even close to over.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 1:25:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 3:49:56 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
*Video cites ice core sample data as showing that temperature rise causes CO2 rise, and not the other way around (something I've debated for YEARS on forums too!),

It's nice when obvious science is ignored so that only part of the story is selected and preferred.

First off: CO2 absorbs IR radiation. You can prove this to yourself with a quick trip to a local college. Ask them to show you an infrared spectrometer (they have them in just about every lab). Have them run a "background scan". See the huge absorption due to CO2? Where do you think that energy absorbed goes?

So we KNOW CO2 absorbs infrared energy. This was shown about 160 years ago or so and isn't controversial at all. It's a greenhouse gas. It's built into the motion of the O=C=O bonds and molecular motion.

NOW, your favorite part that CO2 lags temperature rise is also a thing CO2 can do! A gas dissolved in water (like the ocean) can exsolve when the temperature goes up!

Just because CO2 can lag says NOTHING about it's ability to lead.

CO2, being a greenhouse gas, can raise temperatures and higher temperatures can cause CO2 to exsolve out of solution and increase in the atmosphere.

CO2 CAN DO BOTH OF THESE THINGS! It's an amazing molecule.

Now if you want to make a case that CO2 cannot CAUSE an increase in temperature you'll have to overturn about 150 years or more of physical chemistry.

http://web.archive.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 3:21:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's the Skeptic's Case in this debate: http://mises.org...

Generally, the government climate scientists overestimate and exaggerate trends. Global Warming is occurring, but the amount that humans impact the process is not as much as has been claimed.

Test: Air temperatures from 1988
Climate Models: Overestimated rise, even if CO2 is drastically cut

Test: Air temperatures from 1990
Climate Models: Overestimated trend rise

Test: Ocean temperatures from 2003
Climate Models: Overestimated trend rise greatly

Test: Atmospheric hotspot
Climate Models: Completely missing → no amplification

Test: Outgoing radiation
Climate Models: Opposite to reality → no amplification
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 7:06:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 1:18:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
of course its not over! 60% of geologists (WHO STUDY PAST TEMPERATURE RECORDS) say it is not over.

But the come back is "97% blah blah blah". I am mainly against using poll numbers (even the one I cited) as I think appealing to the authority or "consensus" is a fallacy.

While you clearly don't like the Eos study of Doran et al (which is about the only one "skeptics" know about, because it's easy to grasp) there is another independent study from the National Academy of Science (PNSA article) that comes to a nearly identical finding WITHOUT RELYING ON "POLL" DATA!

If you would like you can read about it here:
http://www.pnas.org...

"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

I would like to know where this 60% of geologists number comes from, though. I mean, I have worked around a LOT of geologists and I don't know many who are that skeptical of "ACC" (or agw, whatever you would like to call it).

"A scientist is never certain." ~ Richard Feynman

It's nice to quote Feynman, but that doesn't mean the science isn't reasonably settled. It is quite correct that the science is never "settled" 100% perfectly, but when the vast majority of scientists who study this stuff actually believe it is real and the SCIENCE MAKES GOOD SENSE and the results keep showing up over and over and over and it's been investigated strongly for the past 60 years or so it seems that at some point rational people can make decisions based on the best available evidence.


I also recently read two books on the topic, and the debate is NOT even close to over.

Let's put it this way: the debate is not over in the "skeptoid" circles. These are people who are largely unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of the science, are driven more by political/economic considerations and are busy working out their confirmation bias.

I bet the books you read were NOT PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE publications....were they? They were probably "popular press books".

That's where the "debate" exists now. Popular press.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 7:17:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 7:06:12 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/12/2012 1:18:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
of course its not over! 60% of geologists (WHO STUDY PAST TEMPERATURE RECORDS) say it is not over.

But the come back is "97% blah blah blah". I am mainly against using poll numbers (even the one I cited) as I think appealing to the authority or "consensus" is a fallacy.

While you clearly don't like the Eos study of Doran et al (which is about the only one "skeptics" know about, because it's easy to grasp) there is another independent study from the National Academy of Science (PNSA article) that comes to a nearly identical finding WITHOUT RELYING ON "POLL" DATA!

If you would like you can read about it here:
http://www.pnas.org...

"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

Once again, appealing to a majority is a fallacy. Also, basic numbers show skeptic scientists are growing. A link I will show below has some data on that.


I would like to know where this 60% of geologists number comes from, though. I mean, I have worked around a LOT of geologists and I don't know many who are that skeptical of "ACC" (or agw, whatever you would like to call it).

"causes of climate change varied: poll" Edmonton Journal


"A scientist is never certain." ~ Richard Feynman

It's nice to quote Feynman, but that doesn't mean the science isn't reasonably settled. It is quite correct that the science is never "settled" 100% perfectly, but when the vast majority of scientists who study this stuff actually believe it is real and the SCIENCE MAKES GOOD SENSE and the results keep showing up over and over and over and it's been investigated strongly for the past 60 years or so it seems that at some point rational people can make decisions based on the best available evidence.

I have looked at the evidence, its really boring but I did it. Here is a summary of it:
http://epw.senate.gov...



I also recently read two books on the topic, and the debate is NOT even close to over.

Let's put it this way: the debate is not over in the "skeptoid" circles. These are people who are largely unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of the science, are driven more by political/economic considerations and are busy working out their confirmation bias.

I bet the books you read were NOT PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE publications....were they? They were probably "popular press books".

They where written by scientists. You also make it sound like there is no peer reviewed study on it. There are many, I recommend you read them or scan their summary. http://epw.senate.gov...

^there is some of them


That's where the "debate" exists now. Popular press.

You obviously have not looked into this at all, the skeptical position is SO much more convincing.

I will debate this with you in a real debate if you would like.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 8:19:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The whole concept that the climate change in of an itself is 100% man-made is as overplayed as much as it is misapplied.

The two primary causes of global warming are as follows:
1) Solar Variation

2) CO2 Emission
Main contributors of CO2:
-Volcano Activity
-Wildfires
-Human activity

I do believe solar variation is what is causing most of global warming (by the way, the virtue of the fact that the Earth is getting globally warmer is not subject to debate), although we could do our best to limit the amount of CO2 we personally put off as it is definitely a contributor.
turn down for h'what
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 8:21:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Winter is coming. That is all.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 8:24:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Once again, appealing to a majority is a fallacy. Also, basic numbers show skeptic scientists are growing. A link I will show below has some data on that.

I know that...I am a professional scientist. But here's a part that some in the non-professional skeptic community really dislikes about science and logic:

While a consensus does not make for a robust scientific hypothesis, one can reasonably expect that a good and robust scientific hypothesis will generate a consensus among the professionals in that field.

It is necessary but not sufficient.

"causes of climate change varied: poll" Edmonton Journal

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about a scientific study. My mistake. Edmonton Journal. When I was working on my doctorate in geology I never read that one. Hmmm.

In addition, my understading is that a voluntary poll is a somewhat weaker system of sampling. It isn't a true random sample, which is why I always prefer the PNAS analysis to the Doran et al EOS study. But that's just because I try to do my science from science points of view, not popular press and popularity polls.

I have looked at the evidence, its really boring but I did it. Here is a summary of it:
http://epw.senate.gov...

Again, I tend to look at the science using "science" sources (you know, like peer reviewed journals or the work of actual climate scientists). I tend to downplay blowhards like the NON-SCIENTIST Inhofe and his political playpen of the EPW. But hey, I understand, that when the science gets "boring", you can always rely on biased sources for an easy read.

You also make it sound like there is no peer reviewed study on it. There are many, I recommend you read them or scan their summary. http://epw.senate.gov...

I will not (nor have I ever) said there weren't peer reviewed science articles on the "skeptical" side. There's even relatively well respected scientists who are skeptics. But they are few and far between. I've read some of their stuff and I've read the opposing side.

While I'm not a climatologist I'm more convinced by the agw hypothesis. It could be my earth science training or the 17 years as a chemist. I tend to see the AGW hypothesis as more compelling.

You obviously have not looked into this at all, the skeptical position is SO much more convincing.

Well, there you're wrong. I'll gladly debate you in an official capacity if you like. I've currently got one going with RoyLatham on the hockey stick. But let me know if you want to have a go 'round.


I will debate this with you in a real debate if you would like.

Definitely!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 10:24:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's a really crappy one for this planet since there is an astronomically low percentage of Co2 in our atmosphere.

Water vapor has been beating the crap out of C02 as a greenhous gas since the Neanderthals first startied peeing in the ocean.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 11:59:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
GW is a crude theory, but perhaps the best we have to try and explain what exactly is going to happen to the planet because of human influence. I would say GW is likely wrong... but it is only wrong in the sense that we know something bad is happening, but we do not possess the means to exactly figure it out. It is disgusting to see people arguing back and forth on the fine details of GW theory while our water and air is being polluted, species are being pushed into extinction, and our beautiful natural landscapes are being replaced with the straight lines and flat shades of artificial structures. In more ways than we can count our current actions are simply unsustainable and some day we will have to answer for our greed. The youngest and greenest of you have the most to lose.
Rob
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 2:11:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 8:19:51 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
The whole concept that the climate change in of an itself is 100% man-made is as overplayed as much as it is misapplied.

And if you find _ANY_ legitimate scientist who says it is 100% man-made, by all means feel free to question them.

Or maybe read the IPCC for an in-depth discussion of the NATURAL and ANTHROPOGENIC factors! They discuss them all in detail!


The two primary causes of global warming are as follows:
1) Solar Variation

2) CO2 Emission
Main contributors of CO2:
-Volcano Activity
-Wildfires
-Human activity

I do believe solar variation is what is causing most of global warming (by the way, the virtue of the fact that the Earth is getting globally warmer is not subject to debate), although we could do our best to limit the amount of CO2 we personally put off as it is definitely a contributor.

Do be aware that real live scientists all over the globe have been analyzing these seemingly simplistic explanations and people who do this for a living do have a somewhat different opinion from yours on the relative importance of human activity and natural forcings.

Here's a puzzler: why has the 13-C stable isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 dropped since the middle 19th century, almost EXACTLY as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels?

But as for the idea that volcanoes play a bigger CO2 role than humans you will probably be hardpressed to find much of anything out there that supports that contention. No one denies that volcanoes can produce CO2, but the question is how much compared to humans?

Moerner and Etiope in 2002 and Kerrick in 2001 report a min-max of volcanogenic CO2 of about 65-319 million tonnes of CO2/year, but the EIA (Energy Information Administration, part of the DOE) estimates CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels of about 29 Billion tonnes /year.

But in the drive to avoid blaming humans despite mathematics, remember that volcanoes also can inject stuff to ameliorate warming (like sulfate aerosols from really big eruptions).

It really does help to have a bit more subtle and nuanced collection of the data.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 2:15:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 10:24:57 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's a really crappy one for this planet since there is an astronomically low percentage of Co2 in our atmosphere.

Water vapor has been beating the crap out of C02 as a greenhous gas since the Neanderthals first startied peeing in the ocean.

Since both of these topics have been clearly and repeatedly addressed by scientists I'm curious why it keeps coming up as critique of the science. Interesting.

But just in case you are new to the game: CO2 is part of the carbon cycle, H2O is part of the hydrologic cycle. When CO2 in excess of the carbon cycle is injected into the atmosphere it has a tough time coming back out. Increase the relative amount of H2O and it comes back out quite easily (scientists call this bizarre effect "precipitation").

CO2 has to be taken up through somewhat slower means and hence an excess of CO2 will reside in the atmosphere longer than an excess of H2O. Granted one individual molecule of CO2 may quickly exchange with the ocean, but usually it is replaced by ANOTHER MOLECULE OF CO2.

The argument from "incredulity" (based on small numbers) is equally unimpressive. I can think of many things which occur in small amounts but can have an exceedingly large effect.
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 9:50:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The consensus on Climate Change within DDO seems to be that its a hoax. Yet at the same time Climate Change continues to get considerable support from the scientific community. I've seen this particular(or similar anyway) assertion get away without scrutiny in a DDO debate:
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 10:22:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/15/2012 9:50:23 PM, Brain_crazy wrote:
The consensus on Climate Change within DDO seems to be that its a hoax. Yet at the same time Climate Change continues to get considerable support from the scientific community. I've seen this particular(or similar anyway) assertion get away without scrutiny in a DDO debate:

I rather assumed the greater DDO community would be more immune to the clarion call of the "skeptoids". I hate to use the term "denialist" because I think that is far too negative and dismissive, but I also dislike using the term "skeptic" since that is a scientific "virtue". One should always be skeptical of claims. But when the science is so solid that about 97% of the world's professional climate scientists believe AGW is real I tend to see a large number of people with only limited understanding of the topic play "skeptic". So I use the term "skeptoid". Skepticism borne of ignorance or only a passing familiarity with the science is hardly valid skepticism.

There are indeed a few scientists who are skeptical, but then I met a geologist years ago who expressed skepticism over plate tectonics. So it takes all kinds.

The problem with AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is that it rests on well established science established in the 19th century coupled with investigations in earnest started about 60 years ago and an exponential increase in quality of data and modeling over the past 30 years.

These days the way I get a clue that agw skepticism is on the rocks is by realizing how much in common many skeptic arguments have with creationist arguments.

Argument:
1. …..is dead!
CREATIONIST: Evolution is Dead
AGW Skeptic: Global Warming is Dead (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com...)
----------------------------------
2. ….is a scam/fraud
CREATIONIST: Evolution Fraud (http://www.nwcreation.net...)
AGW SKEPTIC: Global Warming Scam (http://whatreallyhappened.com...)
----------------------------------
3. ....legitimate scientists disagree with the dominant hypothesis
CREATIONIST: Institute of Creation Research RATE Group
AGW SKEPTIC: Petition Project
------------------------------------
4. I don't believe it, I don't want to pay for it!
CREATIONIST: "Like it or not, you pay for faith in evolution" (WND Article) (http://www.wnd.com...)
AGW SKEPTIC: Global Warming Tax (http://www.foxnews.com...)
------------------------------------
5. The science isn't settled!
------------------------------------
6. …need more/better proof
CREATIONIST: Transitional fossils
AGW SKEPTIC: Better models
----------------------------------------
I've also noted that, like Creationists who have been drug kicking and screaming into acceptance of "microevolution" but vehement denial of "macroevolution" (as if one is somehow diagnostic of another), I've noted that AGW skeptoids are slowly beginning to acquiesce that the globe is getting warmer (had to drag them into that acquiescence) but they vehemently deny human involvement or downplay human responsibiity (as if CO2 wasn't proven to be a greenhouse gas in 1850, or as if the science hasn't evolved to the point that we really understand quite a bit more about the dynamics today).

When there are as many different "versions" of AGW skepticism as their are Creationism (ranging based on how much of the science is accepted) I rather assume it will turn into the same type of debate breaking down not along scientific lines but along "political" or "faith based" lines of different sorts.

Sad thing is, unlike evolution we may run out of time to do anything meaningful before it wreaks havoc on or society. At least with evolution biologists can continue doing their work while we in the "illiteratti" bicker, but in the case of AGW we may need to make changes in our habits PDQ.

I guess, like the creationists, when the science is 100% PERFECTLY proven then maybe the "skeptoids" will agree that there is a "consensus". But since that doesn't happen in the real world I guess maybe we're facing some hard times.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 10:50:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 3:49:56 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
*Video cites ice core sample data as showing that temperature rise causes CO2 rise, and not the other way around (something I've debated for YEARS on forums too!),

It's nice when obvious science is ignored so that only part of the story is selected and preferred.

First off: CO2 absorbs IR radiation. You can prove this to yourself with a quick trip to a local college. Ask them to show you an infrared spectrometer (they have them in just about every lab). Have them run a "background scan". See the huge absorption due to CO2? Where do you think that energy absorbed goes?

So we KNOW CO2 absorbs infrared energy. This was shown about 160 years ago or so and isn't controversial at all. It's a greenhouse gas. It's built into the motion of the O=C=O bonds and molecular motion.

NOW, your favorite part that CO2 lags temperature rise is also a thing CO2 can do! A gas dissolved in water (like the ocean) can exsolve when the temperature goes up!

Just because CO2 can lag says NOTHING about it's ability to lead.

CO2, being a greenhouse gas, can raise temperatures and higher temperatures can cause CO2 to exsolve out of solution and increase in the atmosphere.

CO2 CAN DO BOTH OF THESE THINGS! It's an amazing molecule.

Now if you want to make a case that CO2 cannot CAUSE an increase in temperature you'll have to overturn about 150 years or more of physical chemistry.

actual science in the science forum!? its a miracle! i never thought i would run across a reference to IR spectroscopy here lol. mention NMR and i might just die of excitement.

i have a quetsion for you though, as a chemistry student. my intuition would be that increased temperatures would increase the amount of CO2 that could dissolve in the oceans, not cause it to come out of solution... what am i missing?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
DirkBergurk
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 11:34:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 10:50:59 PM, belle wrote:
i have a quetsion for you though, as a chemistry student. my intuition would be that increased temperatures would increase the amount of CO2 that could dissolve in the oceans, not cause it to come out of solution... what am i missing?

Although I am not an expert on the subject, the solubility of gasses in water is counter intuitive with temperature. As the temperature increases, the solubility of a gas decreases. Hence why cokes always taste much better cold.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 11:50:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 11:34:28 PM, DirkBergurk wrote:
At 5/16/2012 10:50:59 PM, belle wrote:
i have a quetsion for you though, as a chemistry student. my intuition would be that increased temperatures would increase the amount of CO2 that could dissolve in the oceans, not cause it to come out of solution... what am i missing?

Although I am not an expert on the subject, the solubility of gasses in water is counter intuitive with temperature. As the temperature increases, the solubility of a gas decreases. Hence why cokes always taste much better cold.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

i don't doubt that its true, i am just wondering why... i suppose the increase in kinetic energy granted by higher temperatures would increase the rate of gas escaping from the solution faster than the ability of the liquid to solvate the gas increased. you're right though, warm soda goes flat. i didn't think of that.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Platypus666
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:24:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The thermometers are all lying!
NEVER LOGGING IN UNLESS I AM HIGH

Official "The (Weed) Aquatic (Weed) and (Weed) Egg (Weed) Laying (Weed) Mammalian (Weed) Enforceress (Weed) of (Weed) Liberty (Weed), Cuddliness (Weed), and (Weed) Involuntary (Weed) Administration (Weed) of (POT) Psychoactive (Weed) Substances (Weed) To (Weed) All (Weed) The (Weed) Masses (Weed) Under (Weed?) The (Weed!) Control (Weed) of (Weed) The (Weed) All (Weed) High (Weed) FREEDO (Weed) and (Weed) Yyyyyyyyyyyyeah (WEED)" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 10:50:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 11:21:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
i don't doubt that its true, i am just wondering why... i suppose the increase in kinetic energy granted by higher temperatures would increase the rate of gas escaping from the solution faster than the ability of the liquid to solvate the gas increased. you're right though, warm soda goes flat. i didn't think of that.

Technically speaking remember Henry's Law: p=cK

c = concentration
p = partial pressure above gas
K = henry's constant

the K constant changes with temperature. Generally speaking many gases show a change of K with T that causes the gases to be LESS soluble at higher temperatures (although as I understand it this is not the case for every gas).

A simplified explanation can be found here: http://antoine.frostburg.edu...

It basically points out that when a gas dissolves in a liquid there are two energy components:

1. Energy necessary to create a "space" for gas molecule in the liquid
2. Energy release when gas molecule "pops into the space"

In general when the pop-into-the-space" energy component is largest there is a net release of energy when a gas dissolves into a liquid. So solubility will decrease with increasing temperature. Because of water's nature with regards to hydrogen bonds #2 above is greater than it would be in some non-polar solvents and in some organic solvents #1 is larger than it is for water, so in these cases solubility may increase with increasing temperatures.

It's not a perfecty straightforward relationship that increased temperature results in lower solubility, it depends on the gases and the solvent.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 11:22:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 10:50:42 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

So Henry's law upsets you for some reason? You find it "scary"? Definitely stay away from chemistry and other sciences! There's a lot out there in science.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 3:48:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 11:22:30 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/17/2012 10:50:42 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
So Henry's law upsets you for some reason? You find it "scary"?
Non sequitur, anyone?

Definitely stay away from chemistry and other sciences! There's a lot out there in science.
The real scary part is if you do your science like you put together your non sequiturs!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:51:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 3:48:06 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/17/2012 11:22:30 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/17/2012 10:50:42 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
So Henry's law upsets you for some reason? You find it "scary"?
Non sequitur, anyone?

Definitely stay away from chemistry and other sciences! There's a lot out there in science.
The real scary part is if you do your science like you put together your non sequiturs!

But it wasn't a non-sequit for you post "they sky is falling, the sky is falling" while people were discussing CO2 exsolution from water?

Interesting.

Oh well. At least I have science to offer. Not sure what "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" is. Guess it helps you feel like you are contributing. :)