Global Warming and climate change

[kevan321]

Originally Posted by barcelonic

[copy & paste job] Therefore if it were accepted that we are going through a natural cycle which our planet has gone through many times before and will many times again, it would be accepted also that we are in no danger whatsoever.

Why would the fact that the earth has gone through this cycle many times before mean that we were in no danger?

[Jake]

Also the fact that these cycles occur over hundreds of thousands of years, and the last time round didn't have all this new CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuels (Well there was some, but most was formed millions of years ago when there was relatively no life at all - see a link here? Lots of CO2 = No ability for earth to support life).

When the earth was young, it was full of CO2 and water vapour. It was literally like a furnace it was so hot. Now due to plants and particularly the sediments which locked of all of the CO2 in solid carbon (now fossil fuels and crude oil), human life was able to evolve on earth.

By releasing all this locked up CO2, we are slowly (but surely, and faster by the year) rewinding this change which made our existence possible in the first place.

For a balanced world where humans can live and the natural cycles you talk about go round, this extra carbon must stay locked up.

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by kevan321

Why would the fact that the earth has gone through this cycle many times before mean that we were in no danger?

Look. There are two main theories to explain current global warming: one suggests there is a hole in the ozone layer which is caused by human activities and that unless we cease those activities it will worsen and we are all in danger; the other suggests that human activities could never make a significant impact on global temperature and instead current global warming is just a natural cycle which has occurred safely many times before.

So Kevan & Jake, the real question should be "How are we now in danger if the Earth has safely gone through this many times before?"

If your answer is "because of human activity", then that just means you believe theory A and not theory B. That's fine - i havent an opinion myself one way or the other. But I am simply trying to describe theory B, and find myself having to rephrase it with every repost.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by barcelonic

one suggests there is a hole in the ozone layer which is caused by human activities

Erm, sorry to burst your ozone bubble, but this is virtually irrelevant to the main reason of climate change. The sun emits UV rays, the earth absorbs them. The heat is emitted back out via infra red. Now only a certain amount of infra red can pass through the CO2 layer. So more is reflected back to the earth which causes the warming. Scientific fact. Now the more CO2 we emit, the bigger this layer becomes meaning the more heat is trapped in.

However, I do respect your opinion and you are right, the earth does have natural cycles. It's just I don't believe that is where the problem lies.

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by Jake

Erm, sorry to burst your ozone bubble, but this is virtually irrelevant to the main reason of climate change. The sun emits UV rays, the earth absorbs them. The heat is emitted back out via infra red. Now only a certain amount of infra red can pass through the CO2 layer. So more is reflected back to the earth which causes the warming. Scientific fact. Now the more CO2 we emit, the bigger this layer becomes meaning the more heat is trapped in.

My science may be wrong in that regard, but it doesnt change my post one way or the other does it? Its worth you pointing that out for my knowledge and others who may not know the science behind the "manmade" theory, but it doesnt really burst my bubble as its a trivial part of my post.

Originally Posted by Jake

However, I do respect your opinion and you are right, the earth does have natural cycles. It's just I don't believe that is where the problem lies.

When I say "natural cycles" it is just my brain trying to recall what i've heard. Again my science is wrong but my point stands firm. It is not the Earth itself which has these cycles but the Sun. That is why Mars is also experiencing a rising of temperatures.

In fact, several hundred years ago the Earth's temperatures were far higher than they are today and yet they had no aerosols, cars, planes etc... Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[kevan321]

The earth may have gone through the cycle many times, it's also been through an ice age, the earth remained fine, but are you saying a repeat wouldn't effect your life?

Have you seen what the UK would look like if the sea levels raised like they're expecting? I'll try find the map we were given in our water engineering class and scan it, but there's not a whole lot left. London in particular would be ~5m under water, can you imagine the effect that could have?

Just because the earth will be fine doesn't mean we will be

[Jake]

Originally Posted by kevan321

The earth may have gone through the cycle many times, it's also been through an ice age, the earth remained fine, but are you saying a repeat wouldn't effect your life?

Have you seen what the UK would look like if the sea levels raised like they're expecting? I'll try find the map we were given in our water engineering class and scan it, but there's not a whole lot left. London in particular would be ~5m under water, can you imagine the effect that could have?

Just because the earth will be fine doesn't mean we will be

Very true.

The earth's cycles have mostly occured before human life. Also, we will suffer a bigger impact from climate change and cycles of climate as we are so developed and reliant on business etc.

Can you imagine the anarchy if London flooded? Hundreds of thousands of people in Britain alone would be made homeless, looking for other places to live. Industry would collapse - Think the recession is bad... Alot of lower lying areas such as Bangladesh (i think?) would nearly be totally wiped out, leaving most of the population to move to a completely different country. There's barely enough land space to live on as it is. Can you imagine if a load of it dissapeared?

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by Jake

Very true.

The earth's cycles have mostly occured before human life. Also, we will suffer a bigger impact from climate change and cycles of climate as we are so developed and reliant on business etc.

Can you imagine the anarchy if London flooded? Hundreds of thousands of people in Britain alone would be made homeless, looking for other places to live. Industry would collapse - Think the recession is bad... Alot of lower lying areas such as Bangladesh (i think?) would nearly be totally wiped out, leaving most of the population to move to a completely different country. There's barely enough land space to live on as it is. Can you imagine if a load of it dissapeared?

Originally Posted by kevan321

The earth may have gone through the cycle many times, it's also been through an ice age, the earth remained fine, but are you saying a repeat wouldn't effect your life?

Have you seen what the UK would look like if the sea levels raised like they're expecting? I'll try find the map we were given in our water engineering class and scan it, but there's not a whole lot left. London in particular would be ~5m under water, can you imagine the effect that could have?

Just because the earth will be fine doesn't mean we will be

Guys are u even reading my posts? Because in the last one i said its to do with the sun (solar variation is the actual term).

But that aside, what I am trying to get across is that according to theory B (pls read my posts if you dont know what theory B is) NONE of that stuff will happen.

Kevan when i said the Earth will be fine i meant so will each and every one of us!! Im talking about people who DON'T believe global warming is due to human activity - what they believe is that its due to solar variation which has happened before and everything was fine.

They would say to you both... how come none of this stuff being predicted happened during the Medieval Warm Period?!? (again, read my posts if you dont know what the medieval warm period is.)

It does look increasingly like you are not reading my posts. You keep debating that "regardless of whether its natural or man made it is still a danger... regardless of whether its happened before its still a danger" - but its not. I am trying as hard as I can to explain......

Either the problem is man made and all of those horrible things being predicted will happen, OR (emphasis on "or" here) its a natural thing (solar variation) which has happened before and DOES NOT lead to all of those things being predicted!

So for the people who believe that human activity doesn't affect climate change in any significant way, there is nothing whatsoever to worry about! All of those predictions which are scaring you are only relevant if you believe the "manmade" theory. That is why they tell you to "go green" - because ALL of the people telling you to do so are proponents of the "manmade" theory. Think about it... if human activity DOES NOT affect climate change, then how could "going green" POSSIBLY make any difference whatsoever? And why would we need to do anything at all when we know that none of those horrific things happened during the last solar variation in the Medieval Warm Period??

[Moofassa]

Barcelonic, im gonna give you some backup as you seem a bit outnumbered in this debate

Okay, i'm a global warming skeptic. Skepticiscm is a good thing people, it doesn't mean i don't give two hoots about the environment. It means i don't take things at face value, I analyze in an attempt to find the truth. Has anyone delved into the figures?

I posted this before, someone read it MichaelCrichton.com | The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming
Urban Heat islands, doctored data, its all there.

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by Moofassa

Barcelonic, im gonna give you some backup as you seem a bit outnumbered in this debate

thanks moofassa.

if im honest tho this is more of a subdebate which has nothing to do with my feelings on climate change. this is what kevan and jake don't seem to understand:

i am not arguing for one theory or the other, i am simply trying to lay out the theory that says climate change isn't due to human activity. somehow kevan and jake think that whichever theory you believe or regardless of whether solar variation has happened before we are still going to see sea levels wipe out towns and villages and kill loads of people!

which obviously is rubbish as all of those predictions only apply if you think global warming is manmade.

[Moofassa]

Yep, i definately get you barcelonic
I'll try and make it even more simple.

The Earth's temperature has varied over time. The climate is not a static, fixed thing. It changes, adapts, and changes again. In fact, the terms "Climate change" and "global warming are actually misleading and a load of BS because:
1: "Climate change" happens all the time - it was colder and rained today, it was warmer and didn't yesterday. The Climate has changed. I know its a localised example but it can be applied worldwide. The "climate" never stays the same indefinitely.
2:Global Warming - Similar. The earth warms, cools, warms cools every day when the sun rises and sets. The Greenhouse effect is actually good for us and keeps us alive, yet it is constantly portrayed as something bad in the media.

Anyway, what Barcelonic is trying to suggest is that Behind all the hype and evidence, it could just be that natural variation in temperature is happening. If (and i say if because it is disputed) temperatures are reaching higher than before, it DOESN'T necessarily mean WE have anything to do with it. One possible explanation is the Sun Spot Cycle, and incidently we have just experienced a long period of violent solar activity, which could cause increased temperature.
Additionally, i remember Barcelonic saying something about how it is harmless etc, which was argued over.
The earth has suffered various catastrophic events in its life, one example being the comet that killed off the dinosaurs, another being variation in temperature. Each time, THE EARTH and life on earth has survived. Let's distinguish that from "our society as we know it", which will have to adapt if these "consequences" happen.
I agree with those who said it could be tragic and devestating. But i have faith in the Human race to overcome, if it ever comes to that.
/Epic Post over :P

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by Moofassa

Yep, i definately get you barcelonic
I'll try and make it even more simple.

The Earth's temperature has varied over time. The climate is not a static, fixed thing. It changes, adapts, and changes again. In fact, the terms "Climate change" and "global warming are actually misleading and a load of BS because:
1: "Climate change" happens all the time - it was colder and rained today, it was warmer and didn't yesterday. The Climate has changed. I know its a localised example but it can be applied worldwide. The "climate" never stays the same indefinitely.
2:Global Warming - Similar. The earth warms, cools, warms cools every day when the sun rises and sets. The Greenhouse effect is actually good for us and keeps us alive, yet it is constantly portrayed as something bad in the media.

Anyway, what Barcelonic is trying to suggest is that Behind all the hype and evidence, it could just be that natural variation in temperature is happening. If (and i say if because it is disputed) temperatures are reaching higher than before, it DOESN'T necessarily mean WE have anything to do with it. One possible explanation is the Sun Spot Cycle, and incidently we have just experienced a long period of violent solar activity, which could cause increased temperature.
Additionally, i remember Barcelonic saying something about how it is harmless etc, which was argued over.
The earth has suffered various catastrophic events in its life, one example being the comet that killed off the dinosaurs, another being variation in temperature. Each time, THE EARTH and life on earth has survived. Let's distinguish that from "our society as we know it", which will have to adapt if these "consequences" happen.
I agree with those who said it could be tragic and devestating. But i have faith in the Human race to overcome, if it ever comes to that.
/Epic Post over :P

I agree with all of that, but i feel the bold bits vary slightly from what most of the critics believe about climate change. Solar variation wouldnt cause a temperature rise significant enough to merit calling it 'catastrophic'. What the global warming critics are suggesting with this theory is that nothing at all will happen to dramatically affect our lives - just as nothing at all happened during the Medieval Warm Period when temperatures were much hotter.

[Moofassa]

Sorry to confuse hehe, i meant that the sun spot cycle theory is a possible explanation for the current "rise" in temperature, if there even is such a thing. The apparent "rise" in temperature in the late 20th + 21st Century (so far) is only 6 10ths of a degree, which could be accounted for by the Sun Spot Cycle. I agree it would no have the ability to cause catastophic change, that was always due to something else, like a comet, or a series of volcanic erruptions, or desertification, collisions of plates etc.
Yep, i agree with you about how temperatures could become like the Medieval warm period, temperatures would be greater but dangerous. Life would go on.

[Jake]

I'm sorry if my posts sounded dismissive, Barcelonic.

I completely agree that the sun cycles, earth cycles and many other factors will all affect the temperature. Your belief is that it ends here right? That this is happening all the time so why would it do anything amazingly catastrophic this time round? I can see why some people may see that and at least you have a valid argument unlike a lot of skeptics who just hide behind the theory as an excuse.

To put it simply, my belief is that the science proves that to put it simply, co2 traps heat - thus releasing locked up co2 which wasn't there before can only be a bad thing. Now this isn't a natural cycle of any sort and will be a permanent change that won't work in cycles and sun activity etc.

I just feel that even if one doesn't trust the co2/heat graphs, the science of the green house effect is still there, right down to a molecular level. But I understand that you think our activity is insignifcant in comparison to other things.

[Moofassa]

Originally Posted by Jake

To put it simply, my belief is that the science proves that to put it simply, co2 traps heat - thus releasing locked up co2 which wasn't there before can only be a bad thing.

Now this isn't a natural cycle of any sort...

The Carbon cycle is a natural cycle. The Carbon in fossil fuels had to come from somewhere, it used to be in the atmosphere thousands of years ago, and it still only accounted for less than 1% of the atmosphere, just as is the case today. The carbon cycle ensures that all of the planets carbon is recycled and reused, and burning of fossil fuels is accounted into this.

Originally Posted by Jake

But I understand that you think our activity is insignifcant in comparison to other things.

Agree with you on this one, natural forest fires realease huge amounts of C02, the Oceans actually store carbon dioxide and release it constantly in HUGE quantities.

I just don't believe we are having the effect the newspapers are saying we are. That's my opinion and that's fine, yours is equally valid Jake.

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by Jake

I'm sorry if my posts sounded dismissive, Barcelonic.

I completely agree that the sun cycles, earth cycles and many other factors will all affect the temperature. Your belief is that it ends here right? That this is happening all the time so why would it do anything amazingly catastrophic this time round? I can see why some people may see that and at least you have a valid argument unlike a lot of skeptics who just hide behind the theory as an excuse.

To put it simply, my belief is that the science proves that to put it simply, co2 traps heat - thus releasing locked up co2 which wasn't there before can only be a bad thing. Now this isn't a natural cycle of any sort and will be a permanent change that won't work in cycles and sun activity etc.

I just feel that even if one doesn't trust the co2/heat graphs, the science of the green house effect is still there, right down to a molecular level. But I understand that you think our activity is insignifcant in comparison to other things.

So you are saying that essentially you believe that climate change is going to worsen due to human activity, and that solar radiation may also be in effect but that is not the reason for global warming.

That's a perfectly valid opinion. Glad you understand where I was coming from. Just to clarify though, when you say "your belief is that it ends here?", I should reiterate that I don't believe one way or another. I havent actually taken any side in this debate - i've just explained the critics' theory.

Im still largely undecided on the issue as I havent yet researched the issue enough to hold a valid opinion. However, the one thing I do know about is the fallacy of the science world. Note that I say 'science world', not 'science'.

Because scientists are funded by people with agendas and scientific study reports are often manipulated to give a biased impression. The tobacco lobbyists have their own science studies into the effect of tobacco on human health - guess what they've been coming up with all these years? Chernobyl has been reported as killing tens of thousands of people - when in fact the true figure is less than a thousand and some say as little as 55!

Companies commission scientific studies and then take the data that suits them from the findings and then write articles designed to reflect the results at a certain bias, before recruiting the help of a PR firm to release the articles to the Press Assosciation. The media then recycles the PA report verbatim and voila!, you have just indoctrinated thousands, sometimes millions, of people into believing what you want them to believe.

Indeed it is a similar basis on which critics disagree with the scientific data used to promote green initiatives. Be sure to watch the Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

Also, read that Michael Crichton speech posted by Moofassa, specifically the part with the "hockey stick", the graph formulated by a man whose graphs all look exactly the same - like hockey sticks. That point alone is a very valid and important one to assess before vouching for the sanctity of climate change 'science'.

[Moofassa]

[quote=barcelonic;511653]
Because scientists are funded by people with agendas and scientific study reports are often manipulated to give a biased impression. The tobacco lobbyists have their own science studies into the effect of tobacco on human health - guess what they've been coming up with all these years? QUOTE]

Another reference to the the Crichton speech, quote by James Maddison. 4th President of the United States:

"No man is allowed to be judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity."

A conspiracy-style theory is that the "Global Warming threat" has been exaggerated so that certain American Universities recieve large grants to help them research Global Warming - although how much they actually spend on climate research is another matter entirely....