The absurdity of global warming

Global Warming is, pardon my saying so, crap.

We've all seen this chart before. Look at it. Temperatures have risen, right? Yes, but by how much? Look at the margin. The differnce from the top of the chart to the bottom is 1.2 degrees Celsius. Even if the temperature spontaneously rose from the bottom of the chart to the top, you wouldn't even notice the change in temperature. These slight variations have no effect on the climate. And whether or not man has had anything to do with it is also arguable. Also, look at the chart again. The timeline is from 1860 to 2000. If it took that long to rise barely 0.8 degrees Celsius, then I don't think we're in any immediate danger.

Originally Posted by Aerem the Wise

Global Warming is, pardon my saying so, crap.
[IMG]http://www.journeybystarlight.com/images/temperature.png[/MG]
We've all seen this chart before. Look at it. Temperatures have risen, right? Yes, but by how much? Look at the margin. The differnce from the top of the chart to the bottom is 1.2 degrees Celsius. Even if the temperature spontaneously rose from the bottom of the chart to the top, you wouldn't even notice the change in temperature. These slight variations have no effect on the climate. And whether or not man has had anything to do with it is also arguable. Also, look at the chart again. The timeline is from 1860 to 2000. If it took that long to rise barely 0.8 degrees Celsius, then I don't think we're in any immediate danger.

Actually 1.2 degrees Celsius can do more than you think. Also, if you were to look at the graph once more, you'd notice that it's rather consistent until around 1930.

Originally Posted by Forte

Actually 1.2 degrees Celsius can do more than you think. Also, if you were to look at the graph once more, you'd notice that it's rather consistent until around 1930.

Then tell me, what can 1.2 degrees Celcius do? And how much difference does the year 1930 make?

Originally Posted by Aerem the Wise

Then tell me, what can 1.2 degrees Celcius do? And how much difference does the year 1930 make?

The same things only a minor change in temperature has apparently been doing for years. I forget, I think the polar ice caps have receded by 14%. Then again, memory isn't my strong suit, nor is science.
What? I'm just saying the graph is rather consistent, but 1930 (a more modern time) on up, it starts raising drastically.

Originally Posted by Cody

For one thing, an average temperature rise affects the ice caps, meaning that the sea level rises. Huge chucks of ice have been breaking off and floating into the ocean to melt, etc. This blog talks about it, if you're interested.


What's he's saying is that from 1860-1930 there was practically no change at all, so that shouldn't be counted toward the rise in your "top of the chart to bottom of the chart" comparison. The interesting thing to note is that lately it's been rapidly increasing, with a good 1/2 of all the temperature rising on the entire chart happening in the last 20 years. That spells bad news for the prediction for the next 20 years, unless we do something to quell the sharp increase.

It is still a minor increase, and over a period of 2o years. If temperature rises less than a degree in 20 years, then I really feel threatened by this obviously man-made catastrophe! seriously. If temperature continues to rise like this (which it won't, as these fluctuations are normal) then by 2060 the temperature will have risen a whopping five or six degrees since 2000. GASP!

Also explain to me how man has caused this 1 degree rise in temperature, and what can be done realistically to stop it.

Originally Posted by Aerem the Wise

If temperature continues to rise like this (which it won't, as these fluctuations are normal) then by 2060 the temperature will have risen a whopping five or six degrees since 2000. GASP!

Tell me, Aerem, do you know what the difference between it being cold or actually fairly warm in winter is? Or, say, pleasantly warm during summer or heatstroke weather? Because I do believe your five or six degrees would cover that quite nicely. Also, Cody has already mentioned the effect to sea levels, which be nothing short of devestating for a very large number of people.

As for the question of whether or not humans are responsible: Some gases in the atmosphere trap heat. This is scientifically proven fact, and the worst offenders are known as "greenhouse gases" - I'm sure you've heard the term before. Currently, I believe the most significant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere has risen dramatically over the last hundred years or so - another scientifically proven fact. This rise in carbon dioxide levels is, not so incidentally, due entirely to human activity, via the burning of fossil fuels and the like. This is pretty much proven fact as well.

However, personally, I don't think what caused it matters at all. Global warming, man-made or not, is reality, and that means it is a problem. If it continues, the climate will change, sea levels will rise, and it's quite likely that a lot of people will either die or become homeless. The real question is what we can do about it.

Even the smallest change can disrupts our ecosystem. Look it up.

There are so many sides to the warming up taking place. I myself am going back and forth between we are to blame and it is all natural.

The biggest problem I have at the moment is that it is a billion dollar business. People like Al Gore (*Starts running*) are just taking advantage of people's fear and making LOTS of money. (Al Gore owns a 'Green Credit' selling company. So each time you give money to offset your CO2 emissions he makes money.)

Then there are the solutions; hybrid cars? Has everybody forgotten how TOXIC batteries are?

At the moment I am in the "we are causing it but not through our CO2 emissions" camp. Due to deforestation and polluting the oceans with dumping toxics we are hurting nature's ability to take up CO2 and as such it is starting to rise.

There is a lot of BS at every side, which makes it only harder to see where the problem lays and how to solve it. We are killing ourselves by being greedy money slaves. Yeah! For humanity.

Originally Posted by Aerem the Wise

It is still a minor increase, and over a period of 2o years. If temperature rises less than a degree in 20 years, then I really feel threatened by this obviously man-made catastrophe! seriously. If temperature continues to rise like this (which it won't, as these fluctuations are normal) then by 2060 the temperature will have risen a whopping five or six degrees since 2000. GASP!

Also explain to me how man has caused this 1 degree rise in temperature, and what can be done realistically to stop it.

5 degrees is enough to wipe out Earth's population, basically.
Try this Swedish article:
http://translate.google.se/translate...istory_state0=

Originally Posted by Aerem the Wise

Global Warming is, pardon my saying so, crap.

We've all seen this chart before. Look at it. Temperatures have risen, right? Yes, but by how much? Look at the margin. The differnce from the top of the chart to the bottom is 1.2 degrees Celsius. Even if the temperature spontaneously rose from the bottom of the chart to the top, you wouldn't even notice the change in temperature. These slight variations have no effect on the climate. And whether or not man has had anything to do with it is also arguable. Also, look at the chart again. The timeline is from 1860 to 2000. If it took that long to rise barely 0.8 degrees Celsius, then I don't think we're in any immediate danger.

1.2C is a massive temperature increase, considering that it's the global average.

Most predictions have 2-4C as the world-altering levels of change of temperature.

Keeping in mind that this is the global average, so some areas will heat up far more, while others will cool off drastically. All of this upsets currents, air patterns, and weather systems.

As these things get destroyed things get ugly, as the planet's ability to self-regulate its temperature will rapidly deteriorate, leading to an even larger temperature unbalance.


In addition, a slight global temperature increase vastly increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. More water vapour means hotter temperatures, means more watter vapour. This cycle gets completely out of control in, again, 2-4C above normal.

Originally Posted by Icky

There are so many sides to the warming up taking place. I myself am going back and forth between we are to blame and it is all natural.

The biggest problem I have at the moment is that it is a billion dollar business. People like Al Gore (*Starts running*) are just taking advantage of people's fear and making LOTS of money. (Al Gore owns a 'Green Credit' selling company. So each time you give money to offset your CO2 emissions he makes money.)

Al Gore is making massively less than if he endorsed oil or gas companies.

Besides which, his facts come from non-biased sources, and I've yet to hear of even one Climatologist who disagrees with him.

Then there are the solutions; hybrid cars? Has everybody forgotten how TOXIC batteries are?

Batteries are toxic, yes, but they do significantly less damage than burning fuel does.

Seriously, a single battery can't do much to the global environment. (Indeed, if properly disposed of it can do nothing). A single tank of gas does far, far, far more harm.

At the moment I am in the "we are causing it but not through our CO2 emissions" camp. Due to deforestation and polluting the oceans with dumping toxics we are hurting nature's ability to take up CO2 and as such it is starting to rise.

That's a minor issue at best, actually.

Humans are releasing fossil CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 that couldn't be taken up even before we started deforesting. We are, in fact, massively increasing the amount of CO2 in circulation while decreasing the earth's ability to take it out of circulation.

That's what happens every time you burn coal, or oil, or any oil-based product.

There is a lot of BS at every side, which makes it only harder to see where the problem lays and how to solve it. We are killing ourselves by being greedy money slaves. Yeah! For humanity.

No, there's a lot of BS on the denialist side, which includes insisting that there's BS on both sides.

If you look up the facts, only one side is spouting nonsense and expecting to be believed.

Water vapour is actually the most significant greenhouse gas of them all, not carbon dioxide. As John said, warmer temperatures lead to more water vapour in the atmosphere - this is because the warmer air is, the more water vapour it may hold, by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

So, when you consider the combined effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide produced by combustion (which is steadily on the rise) with the water vapour already present, it's clear that it's entirely possible for the global temperature to rise as a result. And, even minor changes can adversely affect the ecosystem.

Indeed, we can already see the effects - the below picture demonstrates seasonal melting of ice in Greenland in 1992 (left) and 2002 (right).

Originally Posted by John

Al Gore is making massively less than if he endorsed oil or gas companies.

You mean how he owned stocks in Occidental Petroleum?
Also the CEO of Shell (Now the biggest company in the world) earns: €5,700,002.00
Al Gore earns: ??? A big secret. He is rumoured to be worth 100€ million.

You do the math. Besides he needs to earn money, if only to pay his monthly €500,- pool heating bill.

Besides which, his facts come from non-biased sources, and I've yet to hear of even one Climatologist who disagrees with him.

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels.

But for the most you are asking catholic priests to be criticising the church. On top of the fact that they are making money of it too.

Batteries are toxic, yes, but they do significantly less damage than burning fuel does.

How are batteries charged again? Oh yeah right by burning fuel.

Seriously, a single battery can't do much to the global environment. (Indeed, if properly disposed of it can do nothing). A single tank of gas does far, far, far more harm.

Again that only goes for lithium-ion batteries though.

That's a minor issue at best, actually.

Yes absorbing 800Gt of CO2 is very minor detail.

Humans are releasing fossil CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 that couldn't be taken up even before we started deforesting. We are, in fact, massively increasing the amount of CO2 in circulation while decreasing the earth's ability to take it out of circulation.

Not so sure about the first but I agree with the second.

That's what happens every time you burn coal, or oil, or any oil-based product.

Or fart.

No, there's a lot of BS on the denialist side, which includes insisting that there's BS on both sides.

People believed the earth was in the center of the galaxy, which others denied.
People believed the earth was flat, which others denied.
People in the 1970's believed we would be in a small ice age now, which others denied.

So yeah. But so you are saying that the 'humans are causing global warming by CO2 emissions' always speak the truth and never tell any sort of lies or BS?

If you look up the facts, only one side is spouting nonsense and expecting to be believed.

Which side of scientists is that? Which side is producing nonsense scientific based research and tests?

Though in the end I must ask; isn't all just due to the population increase? We are all 37 degrees C. heaters, more than 6 billion of them. Aren't we also increasing the temperature just by being alive? That might sound silly but it sounds logical.

For a more scientific approach though:


If you look at the lines, the CO2 line follows the population line far more than the emissions due to fossil fuel burning line.


At the end though I think being sceptic to something is wise, following stuff blindly is never a good idea.

Originally Posted by Icky

You mean how he owned stocks in Occidental Petroleum?
Also the CEO of Shell (Now the biggest company in the world) earns: €5,700,002.00
Al Gore earns: ??? A big secret. He is rumoured to be worth 100€ million.

You do the math. Besides he needs to earn money, if only to pay his monthly €500,- pool heating bill.

Hypocrisy doesn't make someone wrong, and since he just shelled out a massive amount to make his home environmentally friendly and to make up anything that couldn't be solved with carbon offsets...

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels.

Alright, you've caught me moving the goalposts.

One climatologist disagreeing with the others is not exactly damning.

Especially since he, reportedly, agrees that global warming is happening, and that humans are causing it, he just thinks it's a good thing.

But for the most you are asking catholic priests to be criticising the church. On top of the fact that they are making money of it too.

Both false.

Do you know the best way to become known as a scientist? Prove the majority opinion wrong. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Darwin...Every scientist you have ever heard of is famous for doing that.

The best way to get stuck in a dead-end job with a pitiful salary? Go with the flow.

How are batteries charged again? Oh yeah right by burning fuel.

In Ontario over 50% of power is from nuclear sources, with wind and hydro taking up another fair portion.

This means that charging a battery takes maybe 25% the amount of fuel that straight burning it would.

In addition, hybrid cars charge their batteries in a variety of ways, many making use of energy that most cars waste. Thus greatly reducing the amount of fuel the car burns to cover the same distance.

Again that only goes for lithium-ion batteries though.

Nope. All batteries can be safely disposed of.

Yes absorbing 800Gt of CO2 is very minor detail.

Surprisingly, it's more minor than it would seem like it should be.

Not so sure about the first but I agree with the second.

Coal, Oil, etc. is carbon that has been taken out of the carbon cycle. It's spent tens/hundreds of millions of years buried under the Earth, where it has no influence on anything.

Digging it up and burning it re-introduces it into the cycle.

Even if no human had ever harmed a single plant, burning fossil fuels would still be doing a huge number on the environment.

Or fart.

Nope, that's methane, for one, and even if you meant "breathing" to produce CO2, that's CO2 that was already in the cycle and, as such, far less of a problem.

People believed the earth was in the center of the galaxy, which others denied.
People believed the earth was flat, which others denied.
People in the 1970's believed we would be in a small ice age now, which others denied.

So the fact that science gets better over time means that we shouldn't trust it?

Perhaps you shouldn't use that computer that was built on knowledge of quantum mechanics, since only a few decades ago people thought the very ideas of that science were nonsense.

So yeah. But so you are saying that the 'humans are causing global warming by CO2 emissions' always speak the truth and never tell any sort of lies or BS?

I can't speak for all of them, but the facts they cite are, indeed, correct. The conclusions, of course, may not be, but there's far more evidence supporting them than there is the denialists.

Which side of scientists is that? Which side is producing nonsense scientific based research and tests?

Only one side has more than maybe a dozen relevant scientists on its side.

Though in the end I must ask; isn't all just due to the population increase? We are all 37 degrees C. heaters, more than 6 billion of them. Aren't we also increasing the temperature just by being alive? That might sound silly but it sounds logical.

Nope. Population increase drives a need for more fossil fuels, but that's about it.

Humans are tiny. Miniscule. There are (roughly) 7 billion humans alive right now. If we assume that all of them are 2m tall, 0.66m across the shoulders, 0.33m "thick", and perfect rectangular prisms (in the process vastly overestimating the volume of a human, but meh) then we get a total volume of 3 049 200 000m^3.

The volume of the Earth's atmosphere is 51 007 200 000 000 000 000m^3.

That means that humans take up 0.000000006% of the Earth's atmosphere.

The closest example I can think of is a lit match in a room 255km on a side. If I've done my math right, that will have roughly the same effect on temperature as human body heat does.

At the end though I think being sceptic to something is wise, following stuff blindly is never a good idea.

Watch out for this. Being skeptical is not innately better than not. Doubt, yes, but be willing to be convinced by evidence. Many denialists ignore, deny, or purposefully lie about the evidence and then claim to be intellectually purer because they're skeptics. That's not how it works.

Originally Posted by Icky

The biggest problem I have at the moment is that it is a billion dollar business. People like Al Gore (*Starts running*) are just taking advantage of people's fear and making LOTS of money. (Al Gore owns a 'Green Credit' selling company. So each time you give money to offset your CO2 emissions he makes money.)

As far I'm aware, the main reason people in governments and business deny global warming is because trying to do something about it would involve messing up several multi-billion-dollar businesses.

Okay, perhaps I'm being cynical there, but I have never heard an anti-global warming argument that actually meshed with the facts.

Then there are the solutions; hybrid cars? Has everybody forgotten how TOXIC batteries are?

Here's a more practical solution: use your legs. Honestly, the sheer number of people who use a car to go just a mile or two when they could walk it just as easily is ludicrous.

At the moment I am in the "we are causing it but not through our CO2 emissions" camp. Due to deforestation and polluting the oceans with dumping toxics we are hurting nature's ability to take up CO2 and as such it is starting to rise.

The ocean is a big place; dumping toxic chemicals into it isn't going to effect it's CO2 uptake that much. The deforestation is a good point, but honestly, the sheer mass of carbon we've been digging out of the ground and dumping into the atmosphere is bound to do a lot more damage, especially in the short term.

There is a lot of BS at every side, which makes it only harder to see where the problem lays and how to solve it. We are killing ourselves by being greedy money slaves. Yeah! For humanity.

"We are wrecking the planet's current ecological balance by being greedy money slaves" would be somewhat more accurate.

Originally Posted by John

1.2C is a massive temperature increase, considering that it's the global average.

Just backing this up, this would involve the temperature of the ocean and land as well as the atmosphere. I don't know how much energy it takes to heat a given volume of air, but it takes 4.17 joules of energy to heat 1 cubic centimetre of water by 1 C - and trust me, that is a lot of energy for a task that small.

Originally Posted by Astarael

Water vapour is actually the most significant greenhouse gas of them all, not carbon dioxide. As John said, warmer temperatures lead to more water vapour in the atmosphere - this is because the warmer air is, the more water vapour it may hold, by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

Water vapour is the most significant on molecule-by-molecule basis, but the sheer amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to H2O means that CO2 does a lot more damage.

However, as the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases, that is going to change.

Originally Posted by Icky

How are batteries charged again? Oh yeah right by burning fuel.

Depends. What kind of power station is feeding your local grid? Coal, wind, nuclear - what? Because if it's not a coal-fired power station or something similar, you would be wrong.

So yeah. But so you are saying that the 'humans are causing global warming by CO2 emissions' always speak the truth and never tell any sort of lies or BS?

No idea. However, believing that something isn't true because the person telling you about it isn't perfect is something of a fallacy, no?

Which side of scientists is that? Which side is producing nonsense scientific based research and tests?

The ones who deny that more CO2 in the atmosphere will result in higher global temperatures.

Though in the end I must ask; isn't all just due to the population increase? We are all 37 degrees C. heaters, more than 6 billion of them. Aren't we also increasing the temperature just by being alive? That might sound silly but it sounds logical.

It does sound rather silly. Basically, you're suggesting that a mere 6 billion (American version, I presume?) sub-37 C heaters (that's our core temperature, not external) are going to out-perform the sun. The effect of a larger human population would be negligable against that.

For a more scientific approach though:


If you look at the lines, the CO2 line follows the population line far more than the emissions due to fossil fuel burning line.

You are, of course, forgetting that fossil fuels are the only thing contributing to it. Deforestation and the like have an impact as well.

Also, what is the label anthropogenic CO2 meant to mean?

EDIT: Thanks, Evilsbane.

Too many quotes.

Anyway;

1 child policy? Oh yeah that's working great for China!


I would say that actually 70% is used to charge your battery.

Scientists have been wrong so many times that I can guarantee you that in the future people will laugh just as hard about us as we do about people who thought the earth was flat.

People are following this stuff like blind sheep. But then Al Gore got the Nobel price for PEACE for presenting a powerpoint presentation so what do I know.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

I'm just saying that if things keep going the way they are, we'll soon be forced to make some very unpleasant choices.

What's that a graph of?

Does ignoring science make you more likely to be right?

Why? Because of stuff that might happen? We might as well stop now because of the risk of a meteor strike.

Source of electricity generation in the US.

No it could make you happier. I know I rather drive a normal good car than some silly hybrid/electric car. This stuff is hurting the pleasure I have from life: Can't drive a nice car, can't use normal bulb lights, etc. Where does it end? A law that says you are not allowed to use more than 10Kw of power per day?

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

That's still not what I'm saying. I'm saying that LATER, if the strain on global resources gets stretched to the breaking point, we may need to make such hard decisions. Right now, we have the luxury of time and may be able to prevent such eventualities through more simple policies.

John was talking about Ontario. We ALL know the US likes its fossil fuels, there was no need to point it out.

Yeah! And why shouldn't I be allowed to take a dump in the street if I really need to go?

Such policies are not oppressing you. Being a citizen means doing what's best for EVERYONE, not just what you want. The reason why laws exist is because although an action may benefit one person, it may still hurt everyone else. Suck it up and stop whining about your preference for old lightbulbs. Jeez, you'd swear they were important. It's like whining about not being able to use asbestos in a nursery.

So later we are all DEATH. Who cares?

oh cause Ontario is like the biggest place ever? Yeah Ontario has a MASSIVE effect on the environment.

Asbestos is actually bad for you, well actually only if it burns or gets turned into small parts/dust. Lightbulbs are not. Neither are cars that can actually reach 100kph under the hour.

Being a citizen also means being critical of your government and its laws. And nobody asked me, or the general population. It was just decided.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Apparently not you...

What effect it does have, is better than the United States of "we're proud of our 70%" America. Maybe you should consider emulating Ontario, instead of suggesting it should burn as much fossil fuel as you?

As proven by scientists, who you seem to think can't be trusted: "In 100 years, people will laugh at that as much as they laugh about the Earth being flat"

Nobody asked you about giving humanitarian aid to south Asia after the tsunami, either. Does that mean it was wrong to do so?

WUT? I am saying that most use fossil fuel to charge their batteries. And building 800 nuclear power plants brings up a whole different question.

Asbestos = bad = proved.
Causes of global warming = theorized.

Yes because that was tax payers money.

Originally Posted by Icky

I would say that actually 70% is used to charge your battery.

Not in Ontario, and that's still better than burning fuel straight.

Scientists have been wrong so many times that I can guarantee you that in the future people will laugh just as hard about us as we do about people who thought the earth was flat.

No scientists ever thought the Earth was flat.

Anyways, this is a fallacious argument on every level. The fact that science changes does not mean that it is always wrong, that would only be true in a universe where everything is either perfectly correct or totally wrong.

We do not live in such a universe.

We live in one where we work to get closer to the truth.

We also live in one where there is an insurmountable amount of evidence that we're doing massive harm to the environment.

Seriously, what facts do you dispute? What conclusions do you think are wrong? And what evidence do you have that is so overwhelming that it makes you think laymen can overrule experts? (Not an appeal to authority, taking the word of experts in the relevant field just makes sense, unless there's quite a bit of evidence showing them to be wrong.)

People are following this stuff like blind sheep. But then Al Gore got the Nobel price for PEACE for presenting a powerpoint presentation so what do I know.

And now petty personal attacks? Really? I expected better, really.

Originally Posted by John

*STUFF*
And now petty personal attacks? Really? I expected better, really.

What petty attack? Didn't Al Gore get the peace price for a powerpoint presentation?

As for blind sheep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_1LZfLf67E

I base all my facts on Penn & Teller