Global Warming - Fact or fiction?

[jjp]

So I was wondering: what ever happened to the Great Ozone Scare? You don't hear about ozone anymore; was that "problem" "solved"? Since ozone is responsible for absorbing incoming radiation (about 19%) it would seem reasonable that less ozone == more incident radiation == higher surface temperatures. "Ozone's contribution to the enhancement of greenhouse effect is still yet to be quantified."

That it doesn't come up in the media right now does not mean it is a solved problem. I guess you know that the scare about the ozone layer was not related to a fear of climate change but of UV radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depl ... al_warming

Thank you very much, but don't you expect that looking at Wikipedia is the very least someone posting about the topic will do beforehand? What are you trying to tell?

[Bekas]

The problem is the proposed solution. Currently that consists largely of a system of payola to a large cadre of third-world countries who have no interest in climate, yet love the idea of more handouts from the UN. It consists as well of a significant loss of sovereignty should a nation "default" on its obligations under the terms of Copenhagen (the ones that are currently floating around anyway) -- in the US, this means one step closer to "One World Government" that the crazy right has been on about for decades.

Allow me to calm your fears.

[jheld]

So I was wondering: what ever happened to the Great Ozone Scare? You don't hear about ozone anymore; was that "problem" "solved"?

Kind of. The science is more mature-- ozone depletion is catalytic with CFCs and cold temperatures, so far easier to prove. Here's an example with tough environmental legislation is very useful-- CFCs were regulated and the effects were immediate. Yes, we still have HCFCs (among others) which deplete ozone, but not as aggressively as CFCs, much of which are still around. But at least the holes aren't getting any bigger than the temperatures encourage.

So there's two good reasons to cheer on global warming:
1/ Fix the ozone holes
2/ Do I need to say it? GREENLAND http://www.arkadia.com/usa/real-estate/ ... greenland/

[xavier]

This just in...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

Bad law forces more bad policy.

On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act

I wasn't aware that a background in climate science was a judicial prerequisite...

EPA carefully reviewed, considered, and incorporated public comments and has now issued these final Findings.

They left out the most important part of that sentence; replace the word "incorporated" with "ignored". This is what happens when political appointees are given this much power by federal law. The law of unintended consequences reigns supreme...

[KungFooMasta]

Nice logic. Are you saying Global warming is fiction because the current data doesn't show you it as fact, or do you have some information that disproves the idea of Global warming? Please share.

Also, I think some of the big voices in the thread are misleading the general readers, I do not believe the majority of the US believe global warming as false, or share the same kind of opinions as xavier, for example. Even before news about contaminated data you were not convinced. 400k years of data is not enough to prove anything. As Victor said a while back, these people cannot be convinced. (Unless you can explain how everything works 100% with undisputable data from credible sources (approved by xavier and others))

[syd]

Also, I think some of the big voices in the thread are misleading the general readers

who?

I never implied the majority of american think GM as false, but that the only people questionning it are from the US.
but it turned out to be wrong since my friend Jacmoe is skeptical also.

400k years of data is not enough to prove anything.

What this data proves, is that a co2 concentration greater than 300ppm is an anomaly.

[weshowe]

I don't think anything is going to stop the adoption of a "treaty" in Copenhagen, and the President of the U.S. will probably sign it.

I also don't think such a treaty has any chance of approval by the U.S. Congress, without which the President has no authority to bind the U.S. Those who do not live here may not understand that the reason the U.S. is not lobbying the rest of the world to get a Global Warming treaty in place ASAP is that there is not clear public support here. People are skeptical of the issue, and the pressure to do more faster has just increased suspicion that it is all about politics and not really science.

And new reports that programs included with the "Climategate" data clearly show manipulation of the climate data by programmers to enhance the warming scenario is far more damning than mentions of erasing emails or allusions to ways to "hide the decline", because the entire "proof" rests on these computer models.

It is amazing how prescient old Will was when he penned "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark".

[xavier]

I also don't think such a treaty has any chance of approval by the U.S. Congress, without which the President has no authority to bind the U.S.

That's why that last post I made is so important -- he no longer has to. It's not a coincidence that the EPA released this decision on the first day of Copenhagen -- the EPA administrator said that was planned.

The practical upshot of that decision means that immense power has just been given to a single individual (by that same individual, perversely enough) to control just about every single industrial, mechanical and agricultural process she feels like (anything that remotely involves production of carbon dioxide -- I wouldn't be surprised if regulations on our breathing come down at some point). No single person has ever had this much power in the history of the United States. And this person was a political appointee of President Obama. So no, he doesn't have to worry about Congress anymore -- the worst abrogation of the separation of powers in the United States goverment just occurred today, and no one noticed. We more or less just became a de facto monarchy, all on the basis of dubious science. What a great day to be an American...

[syd]

sorry guys to take some more space in this thread.

looks like some american guys here aren't getting it.
looks like also I'm wasting time, there's no point to try, however, I just 'hope' something will happen:








What is you rationnal explanation to this?

[xavier]

sorry guys to take some more space in this thread.

No, feel free to take whatever you want -- I'm busy lamenting the death of the democratic process in the once great United States. It really no longer matters what sciences thinks or does not think; at this point it only matters what King Obama thinks, and he clearly sides with the sky-is-falling crowd (nothing like a good "crisis" as cover for a huge power grab -- just ask Bush and the neocons).

[syd]

common xavier, your president is doing what any american is supposed to do.
in hollywood movies at the end, americans are always the guys who save the world.
so if you are a good patriot, it means you support Obama

[VictorMoran]

sorry guys to take some more space in this thread.
looks like some american guys here aren't getting it.
looks like also I'm wasting time, there's no point to try, however, I just 'hope' something will happen:

What is you rationnal explanation to this?

Wow, what a blow man, devastating, no wonder Xavier is throwing the Kitchen think now.

sorry guys to take some more space in this thread.

No, feel free to take whatever you want -- I'm busy lamenting the death of the democratic process in the once great United States. It really no longer matters what sciences thinks or does not think; at this point it only matters what King Obama thinks, and he clearly sides with the sky-is-falling crowd (nothing like a good "crisis" as cover for a huge power grab -- just ask Bush and the neocons).

Take it easy xavier you are going to pop an artery.

[xavier]

common xavier, your president is doing what any american is supposed to do.

What, rape the Constitution in broad daylight? This guy is supposed to be a Constitutional scholar...

Fact is, in this particular case, he's just taking advantage of political mistakes made 40 years ago -- again, the law of unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time, because yours won't always be the party in power...at least it explains why there was never any real concern from the White House on the stalled cap-and-tax bill in Congress; he simply directed Lisa Jackson to give him absolute power. What a twisted world we live in...

[syd]

let's focus on the subject Global Warming - Fact or fiction?

I expect an answer, to this

What is your rationnal explanation to this?

[xavier]

To what? Why are you still arguing a point that was settled ages ago? You believe that it's entirely man-made, I don't. I think Jerky put it best when he said "agree to disagree".

Conversely, it looks to disprove any correlation between CO2 levels and temperature -- see, those charts work both ways.

[syd]

You believe that it's entirely man-made, I don't.

what do you believe?

[xavier]

Natural processes are at work, or other causes hitherto unexplored due to the myopic focus on CO2. Haven't we covered this already?

[syd]

Natural processes are at work, or other causes hitherto unexplored due to the myopic focus on CO2. Haven't we covered this already?

look again



you have 400k years of natural processes, is this curve ending in a natural looking way?

[xavier]

Natural processes are at work, or other causes hitherto unexplored due to the myopic focus on CO2. Haven't we covered this already?

Again, you have a myopic focus on CO2. Your original question was about a graph that showed no correlation between the current levels of CO2 and the current temperature recordings. So which are we talking about? If you want to get back on topic with "global warming" you are going to have to do better than trying to pin it solely on CO2, because your "proof" proves you wrong on that score.

[syd]

let's focus on co2. is everything looking fine with co2?

[xavier]

let's focus on co2. is everything looking fine with co2?

No, you can't have it both ways -- you asked for my rational explanation about a graph that shows on correlation between current CO2 levels and current temperature readings. On that basis, the CO2 is irrelevant. you can feel free to focus on it if you like -- like I've said before, no one is arguing the data.

[syd]

like I've said before, no one is arguing the data.

how is the CO2 curve ending then?

[Jerky]

You guys need to learn graph reading 101. Here are a couple things that should help explain my problem with the graphs you keep showing (over an over):


The whole point of the graph is to show that CO2 levels and temperature always correlate. The problem is that the newer graphs proves to be its own downfall by showing that the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature NO LONGER EXIST. That is enough to disprove any CO2 data, because all the assumptions made on that graph were to show that we can read the temperature levels based off the CO2 in the ice. Since it is no longer valid, I can't believe it as a reliable source TO EXPLAIN TODAYS TEMPERATURE. It looks very reliable until 1950. Now, had you not shown me the temperature graph, and just shown me the CO2, then I cannot dispute that we are higher than we have ever been in the last 420,000 years. But that's not all you're trying to prove. You're trying to prove by that graph that the temperature is going up, but its not.

Here is my other issue with it. It's only a TEENY TINY portion of data from the history of life on this planet. Aren't we interested in seeing how climate change effects life on this planet, and how it can sustain itself. The fact that we have 3.5 billions years of fossil record show that life existed throughout the iceages or whatever else happened. Here is a nice new graph I made myself to show you what I mean:


I love that somehow we have become the uneducated dolts because we don't accept what you are saying. You don't even understand the graphs and what they are meant to prove. Had that graph been drawn that way without any labels. And then we assigned to random things to the two colors, anybody would have concluded that the correlation broke at the end, so therefore we CAN'T conclude anything from the data. Result: inconclusive

[xavier]

how is the CO2 curve ending then?

Again, it's irrelevant.

See, your problem is you just went out and found some pictures that seem to bolster your position. You don't have a clue what those charts mean, or the faintest idea of how they were arrived at scientifically. Nor do I, since you don't include where they came from, so to argue on the basis of a few pretty pictures is pretty meaningless overall.

I suggest you do what I did, which is start with Bekas' link to RealClimate, and follow the links to the sources they cite. Many of them will lead you to nature.com, which seems to be another good place to learn more about the actual science going on. You can also read that book online that I posted above (the PDF from the Univ Illinois guy -- you'll want to get it now while it's still available in PDF draft form tho) -- it's going to do you far more good in the long run. I recommend section 8.3 if you want to know more about CO2.

[jheld]

What is your rationnal explanation to this?

Well said, Jerky, on the explanation on correlation. Even assuming the data is correct, and ignoring all other problems (such as scale) it means exactly that there are other forces at work than CO2.

Syd, to say it another way, according to your own graph, there appears to be a near-direct relationship between temperature and CO2 right until the point where the evil Sarah-Palin-Loving-Americans dirty things up for the rest of the world. But even with the extra 150 ppmv CO2, there's no corresponding jump in temperature, which should change between +4 and +6. It disproves all previous assumptions on CO2-temperature relationships. Surely you see that? I mean, even without the US passport

-Jason
Ps- the palin thing was just sarcasm, btw
Pps- this doesn't mean the CO2-temp relationship isn't there. It means we don't understand it