Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?

[YOUTUBE]FOLkze-9GcI[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]vN06JSi-SW8[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]iCXDISLXTaY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]bpQQGFZHSno[/YOUTUBE]

Discuss.

 

[The Fat Controller]

This is a big job, I'll get back to you on this one.

 

[waltrulz]

misplace thermometers?.?.? oh now I get why the ice caps are melting.

 

[K-3-V-1-N]

Ironblade87 adds: Water vapour is actually the largest contributor to climate change. It's just that CO2 is the only one that humans have a large contribution to.

 

[The Fat Controller]

misplace thermometers?.?.? oh now I get why the ice caps are melting.

Good point

Ok, here's my first stab. I think it'd be best if I deal with this bit by bit, instead of posting everything in one chunk.

I doubt the factual accuracy of 5:00-5:20 in part one, where he's pointing at the ice-core graph and saying that rates of warming have been similar during several different periods over the past 2000 years. These are proxy measurements and should have big margins of error. It's ridiculous to state that this rate of temperature change is nothing unusual with nothing but the evidence he was seeing on that screen.

 

Good point

Ok, here's my first stab. I think it'd be best if I deal with this bit by bit, instead of posting everything in one chunk.

I doubt the factual accuracy of 5:00-5:20 in part one, where he's pointing at the ice-core graph and saying that rates of warming have been similar during several different periods over the past 2000 years. These are proxy measurements and should have big margins of error. It's ridiculous to state that this rate of temperature change is nothing unusual with nothing but the evidence he was seeing on that screen.

The icecore samples align with other temperature-proxy datasets and thus the general validity and accuracy of the dataset is not in dispute. You may present evidence if you believe this not to be the case.

This argument cuts both ways and is therefore useless unless it can be substantiated further. Given the frequency of recorded warming-cooling periods in dataset, and given the magnitude and rate of these periods of warming, and given the current magnitude and rate of warming, even with a high margin of error it would be unscientific to postulate that the 20th century was in some way unusual.

 

[The Fat Controller]

The icecore samples align with other temperature-proxy datasets and thus the general validity and accuracy of the dataset is not in dispute. You may present evidence if you believe this not to be the case.

If you skip to page 467 here, you can see how these sorts of reconstructions don't serve for making definite statements about anything:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8-m8nXB8GB4C&printsec=frontcover#PRA1-PA467,M1

I'm not asking you to consider the validity of the content, just note the discrepancies between the different datasets as graphed, and the confidence levels represented on the reconstructed temperature graph.

The issue is that Carter didn't qualify his remarks. How can he thunder on so confidently while showing us that sort of evidence to back up his argument? It's unscientific.

This argument cuts both ways and is therefore useless unless it can be substantiated further. Given the frequency of recorded warming-cooling periods in dataset, and given the magnitude and rate of these periods of warming, and given the current magnitude and rate of warming, even with a high margin of error it would be unscientific to postulate that the 20th century was in some way unusual.

Well the IPCC have substantiated this further, and have concluded it is "very likely" that Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 50 years have been higher than any other 50 year period in the last 500 years, and "likely" for the past 1300 years. Only one of several reconstructions suggests slightly warmer conditions than the past 50 years occurred during the 11th century.

 

The issue is that Carter didn't qualify his remarks. How can he thunder on so confidently while showing us that sort of evidence to back up his argument? It's unscientific.

He said it was icecore data from greenland. His analysis is not unscientific. He uses a second temperature proxy later: ocean floor mudcores.

As for the graphs in the book you presented as evidence: I could probably provide you with 5 matching empirically sound temperature proxy datasets and you would go out and find 495 equally unsound datasets and insist I impose them into an overlap graph.

In my opinion that is what has happened in the below graph.

Fewer than 10% of the temperature proxies included strongly indicate the Medieval warm period, which we know with certainty did take place and which records indicate lead to a considerable increase in the production of food in Britain and Europe leading to a considerable increase in population. This is further evidenced by the famines following the cooling off of the MWP.

Given this point I would be strongly skeptical of the above graph.

 

[The Fat Controller]

He said it was icecore data from greenland. His analysis is not unscientific. He uses a second temperature proxy later: ocean floor mudcores.

So, like Carter, I can get any one of my "495 unsound datasets" and use it to say whatever I like, even when the actual answer is that we don't know for sure? The IPCC don't know for sure. However, Bob Carter implies when he points at the graph and tells the audience that temperatures have increased at this rate before, that is absolutely not unusual.

As for the graphs in the book you presented as evidence: I could probably provide you with 5 matching empirically sound temperature proxy datasets and you would go out and find 495 equally unsound datasets and insist I impose them into an overlap graph.

Fewer than 10% of the temperature proxies included strongly indicate the Medieval warm period, which we know with certainty did take place and which records indicate lead to a considerable increase in the production of food in Britain and Europe leading to a considerable increase in population. This is further evidenced by the famines following the cooling off of the MWP.

Given this point I would be strongly skeptical of the above graph.

There are other question apart from temperature change that need addressing if you want to extend your argument to the success in farming:

*Was the MWP a global phenomenon?
*How did the climate change around the world during the MWP?

And furthermore, why would the majority of studies be inaccurate and miss off the bulk of the effect of the MWP? It looks to me like you're cherrypicking results you want to believe rather than objectively assessing all the available information.

 

[Sw1TcH]

i don't think so, because it would take a lot more CO2 for it to have that effect if you count in all of the plants.

 

[The Fat Controller]

i don't think so, because it would take a lot more CO2 for it to have that effect if you count in all of the plants.

CO2 graph

You see, the red line here is the difference between summer and winter i.e. when plants lose their leaves in the northern hemisphere where it's greener, the ppm goes up. Increased plant growth isn't going to make a very big difference.

 

So, like Carter, I can get any one of my "495 unsound datasets" and use it to say whatever I like, even when the actual answer is that we don't know for sure? The IPCC don't know for sure. However, Bob Carter implies when he points at the graph and tells the audience that temperatures have increased at this rate before, that is absolutely not unusual.

Let us return to the burden of proof: The ice core data he is using are consistent with climate in historical records from Europe and Britain, while the core samples are from Greenland... Do you have evidence that this is not an accurate temperature proxy?

There are other question apart from temperature change that need addressing if you want to extend your argument to the success in farming:

*Was the MWP a global phenomenon?

Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#By_world_region

*How did the climate change around the world during the MWP?

See above.

And furthermore, why would the majority of studies be inaccurate and miss off the bulk of the effect of the MWP? It looks to me like you're cherrypicking results you want to believe rather than objectively assessing all the available information.

By simple probability. Most temperature proxies are affected by more than one variable.

 

[waltrulz]

were probably just learning more about the world than before, so what ever factual data we get now, may have no real relevance to what was before, so you shouldn't compare it. second only in the past 40 year have we been able to accurately map the ocean floor, ice caps, and climate. The real fact is that the world is getting hotter, not much, but enough. The media has just bastardized us all in believing in stuff, this is a fact not a belief. We would be better off if we invested in clean renewable energy sources then relying on fossil fuels. Saudi Arabia knows this; they have plans on building massive solar cells across their land and building zero resistant wires (Aluminum in -260 temp has no electricity resistant) to carry electricity to the world. So should we invest in cleaner fuels or stay the same and see what happens, Cause if the world does get hotter, the ocean currents may shut down, cooling the earth in an Massive ice age. Going green is not being a conformist it's the right thing to do.

 

[i noob killer i]

co2 cannot be the cause as its been around millions of years why would it do it now?

 

[Xane]

co2 cannot be the cause as its been around millions of years why would it do it now?

Like what Finniscool said cars, planes, space shuttles, etc. have not been around for millions of years. 1 lbs. of gasoline produces 20 lbs. of CO2, which is a staggering number. There have been fluxes of CO2 in the atmosphere but the CO2 that has been produced in the last 40 years went way beyond those flux amounts.

There is also a lot less trees/plants on Earth than there were millions of years ago, so the margin between the production of CO2 and the intake of it greatly increases with each passing year. Adaption I think is not an option anymore. Stephen Hawking himself said "If the human species wants to continue living, we need to find a new planet". Just my 2 cents.

 

were probably just learning more about the world than before, so what ever factual data we get now, may have no real relevance to what was before, so you shouldn't compare it. second only in the past 40 year have we been able to accurately map the ocean floor, ice caps, and climate. The real fact is that the world is getting hotter, not much, but enough. The media has just bastardized us all in believing in stuff, this is a fact not a belief. We would be better off if we invested in clean renewable energy sources then relying on fossil fuels. Saudi Arabia knows this; they have plans on building massive solar cells across their land and building zero resistant wires (Aluminum in -260 temp has no electricity resistant) to carry electricity to the world. So should we invest in cleaner fuels or stay the same and see what happens, Cause if the world does get hotter, the ocean currents may shut down, cooling the earth in an Massive ice age. Going green is not being a conformist it's the right thing to do.

So your argument is 'we don't know', therefore government should impose carbon taxes, encourage reduced population, and waste money on inefficient technologies? That's a fallacy:
argumentum ad ignorantiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) and frankly a violation of human rights in the name of a new religion you just invented.

 

[Analog]

Sythe...if your that inquisitive and want to watch something which elaborates on the topic, I suggest "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. You can read up about it here: http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Also, I'm sure you could find it on another site which hosts movies. If you'd like to watch it, it's an hour and 40 minutes, just post and I'll check for a site.

 

Sythe...if your that inquisitive and want to watch something which elaborates on the topic, I suggest "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. You can read up about it here: http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Also, I'm sure you could find it on another site which hosts movies. If you'd like to watch it, it's an hour and 40 minutes, just post and I'll check for a site.

I've seen it.

 

[Analog]

What do you think about it?

 

[waltrulz]

So your argument is 'we don't know', therefore government should impose carbon taxes, encourage reduced population, and waste money on inefficient technologies? That's a fallacy:
argumentum ad ignorantiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) and frankly a violation of human rights in the name of a new religion you just invented.

in laymen's terms; don't pollute the environment = pollute the environment = research "cleaner" technology = use "cleaner" fuels = believing what a guy says in a 40 min video = researching it on you own = believing the media and all their propaganda = getting some facts from the media =| doing good for your world after all it's the only reason why your alive = I hope that was a compelling augment

knowing something is knowledge, admitting something you don't know is being wise.