Is the Global Warming debate really over?

*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.

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.

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

The research actually shows how insignificant CO2 is.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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"

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.

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.

"causes of climate change varied: poll" Edmonton Journal

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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.

At 5/17/2012 10:50:42 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

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"?

Definitely stay away from chemistry and other sciences! There's a lot out there in science.

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!