posted
I made a list of all the reasons I could think of, from sensible to silly. I want to know if there are reasons in either direction that I have left out, that aren't at the silly end. (What's in it for me: a better analysis than I've heard, I hope. What's in it for Hatrack: it's more fun to debate issues than read your Spam folder. I hope.)
Here's what I have so far.
Reasons not to believe in manmade global warming
It's a scientific question, and in science we're not supposed to believe, we're supposed to attempt disproof.
The Earth has a lot more water vapor in the air than CO2 (especially in the hottest regions, which are also the wettest). Water vapor plugs very well the same infrared gaps that CO2 does. Increasing CO2 therefore will have little effect on the insulating properties of the atmosphere (although it won't be zero).
Most of the increase in temperature in the 150 years 1850-2000 occurred in the first 50 years, when CO2 was the lowest, thus suggesting another cause.
We know that increasing the temperature of bogs and of water causes outgassing of CO2; this explains why CO2 increases in warmer periods.
Global temperatures correlate strongly with sunspot activity, and with C14 concentration (caused by changes in the solar wind, not by human activity). We are currently in a period of high sunspot activity and higher temperature; this fits the pattern.
The Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles. We haven't reached the temperature of the Holocene optimum (in humanity's prehistory).
...nor has Europe warmed up enough that you can grow grapes in England, as you could in medieval times.
Mars, Titan, and Saturn are getting warmer. Mars is losing its northern dry-ice cap. Occam's Razor suggests a common cause, which can't be human industry.
Most scientists are not experts in this particular aspect of climatology, and their opinions are therefore not expert opinions in that area, and should not be weighted heavily.
Suppose we assume humanity is responsible for global warming, and take the action to reduce CO2 output significantly. Much of the human race would starve without food grown by fossil-fuel-fired tractors. So let's assume we aren't responsible.
Look how cold it was last winter!
The study that showed solar intensity variation couldn't account for recent differences only considered solar intensity, but did not consider other factors that correlate with solar variation.
Manmade global warming is a media creation, and what's more, Al Gore is weird.
Climate models show that the climate of the earth must get hotter and hotter or colder and colder till life is extinguished, but the earth doesn't really do that, so there must be something wrong with our climate models.
...and reasons not to worry
We don't know that global warming is dangerous.
Previous warming times have not been disasters for humanity.
The only concrete expected result of global warming is longer growing seasons in the richest food-producing areas of the world: North America and Eurasia.
As the Earth has warmed, hurricanes have not increased in strenght or number. Current models suggest more warming in the polar regions and not much change in the equatorial, so there will be a smaller temperature difference and thus *less* severity of hurricanes.
Most of the Antarctic ice is in the eastern half, which is ringed by mountains and can't slide into the sea. So to melt it, you'll have to get through miles of insulating ice, and that will take centuries of higher temperatures than Antarctica is anywhere close to. The western half of Antarctica, meanwhile, is smaller and a goodly chunk is already floating (Ross Ice Shelf); melting this won't affect sea levels at all.
No climatologist, pro-AGW or otherwise, suggests runaway greenhouse effect as a possible result.
Reasons to believe manmade global warming
This is a practical question, so belief is relevant.
All other things being equal, increasing CO2 concentration increases the insulating aspect of air.
The increase in temperature in the past 150 years correlates positively with the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
In ice cores, we see CO2 higher during warm periods; so either CO2 caused the warming, or the warming caused the CO2 increase, or both were caused by something else. Given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we should go with CO2 being the cause.
The recent temperature increase is higher than can be accounted for by changes in solar output.
We have exceeded the global temperatures of any time in humanity's existence. The Holocene optimum thing is wrong.
Maybe Europe's warmth in medeival times was a local phenomenon.
Suppose we assume humanity isn't responsible for global warming, and we do nothing. The cost is way too high. So we should assume we're responsible until we know otherwise.
Most scientists support the theory of manmade global warming.
Look how hot it was last summer!
Everybody who disbelieves manmade global warming is a corporate stooge.
Climate models show CO2 emissions being the cause of global warming. ...and reasons to worry
We don't know that global warming isn't dangerous.
Previous warming times weren't disasters for humanity, but they didn't have 7.5 billion people to feed. Also, this is an unprecedented warming.
With more heat in the system, hurricanes will be stronger and more plentiful.
The Greenland ice cap will melt. If it happens quickly, This will temporarily shut down the Gulf Stream and make Europe much colder.
The Antarctic ice cap will melt, flooding cities and coastlines for meters all over the world.
We risk runaway greenhouse effect, evaporating the oceans and exterminating life on Earth.
posted
Is it just me, or do points C and 3 contradict each other?
(Half tongue-in-cheek comment, by the way. I'm aware that there is some disagreement between the two camps on exactly this point.)
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: [*]The study that showed solar intensity variation couldn't account for recent differences only considered solar intensity, but did not consider other factors that correlate with solar variation.
posted
not terrible, but I feel like some of your points to not believe seem worded in a negatively biased fashion: A) we're not supposed to believe unless presented with a significant amount of clear evidence. J) "so let's assume we're not responsible" should more reasonable be something like "so let's not do anything too rash without clear evidence that it's worth it" 1) might be better as: "this is a practical question, so even if we don't have all the facts in we should be acting on those we do have" 9) is this really true? define "scientists" give a reliable source, and define the actual question asked in the survey (or whatever it was that led you here)
Also this seems a bit biased because of the following: most people I know who aren't convinced that global warming is a man-made problem (myself included) still think that taking steps to be more green is a good idea... (i.e. #2,#8,#13...)
Basically, I've yet to see the evidence to make me think that humanity is a significant portion of the issue. however I'm reasonably certain that limiting our CO2 emissions and generally making our presence here more environmentally friendly is a good idea...
Also, C and 3 definately seem to contradict each other as currently stated.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
WonderingMind's youtube videos about global warming. Someone posted a link to one of these videos a while back and I ended up watching every single one. He makes it much easier to understand. "How it All Ends" is a basic overview, and is quite funny.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pascal's Wager? Really? That's the best he could do? Pathetic. Risk management includes likelihoods, and not just outcomes.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then there's the fact that the economic damage done could have catastrophic results itself. I mean, if the proponents of Global Warming are going to have a doomsday scenario, why shouldn't the opponents? What would the impact of a global depression be on our society at this point in time?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Bando points out, we would *expect* contradictions between opposing sides.
I'll have to check out the YouTube videos when I'm at work and have DSL. Thanks to everyone for your points so far.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: As Bando points out, we would *expect* contradictions between opposing sides.
The curious part is that the opposing sides come to contradicting conclusions, based on the same data , in this case the temperatures and CO2 levels for the last 150 years. Is there a correlation between them or not?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Pascal's Wager? Really? That's the best he could do? Pathetic. Risk management includes likelihoods, and not just outcomes.
He actually goes into great detail about how his message seems to mimic Pascal's Wager. The difference, he states, is that one is backed by several sources and a decent amount of scientific evidence. Probability makes all the difference. If you could really consider this a "Wager", then I'd say that the odds are pretty fixed (at least, according to AAAS and NAS, which is all it really took to win me over).
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Addendum: His main video is only meant to convince the general public. In other words, people who've never heard of Pascal's Wager. If you want the real lowdown on his stance and why he made that video, you have to watch at least most of his other videos.
If you happen to watch all of THOSE videos (I sat through all 6 hours of them, and they worked on me), then I suggest putting in an extra hour and watching the other line of videos he posted (though doesn't star in) called "The most IMPORTANT video you'll ever see".
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you aren't already decided on the issue, Lisa, I'd recommend watching some of the other 30+ videos and hours of work he's put into his arguments--he's responded to tens of thousands of arguments against him and has gone to great lengths to find ways to DISprove is ideas.
What's pathetic is that most people watch a few minutes of video and dismiss it.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oy. We need a thread that organizes the dozens of global warming threads.
Even if just for Rabbit's sake, I've lost count of the number of these threads she's rehashed the same arguments in.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Edited for correction: These links should take you to the first post of threads in which The Rabbit posted about global warming (of the threads that showed up on this search). Each post directly linked in a given thread above may not be the most relevant one of hers in that particular thread, but it usually doesn't take her long to hit full stride.
posted
I just saw a History Channel show this morning about climate change in the early Middle Ages. They think it caused the Plague. People had already been dying of starvation from a lack of crops. The Vikings had to migrate elsewhere. it was really fascinating.
It was called the Mini Ice Age or something.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Okay everyone. You can't post a comment about global warming again in this thread until you read EVERY ONE of those posts. There will be a pop quiz!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
When I'm finished tidying up above, I'm going to start a new thread with an easily searchable title and the UBB Codes from this search, so that it can be readily found, bumped, and updated for the next ?global warming? thread.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "Little Ice Age" peaked around 1600, IIRC. One of its casualties was the European colony on Greenland -- they all died.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit talked about "The Little Ice Age" and "The Hockey Stick" a good bit somewhere in there, IIRC. I'll see if I can dig cites up once I'm finished with the long edit above.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: As Bando points out, we would *expect* contradictions between opposing sides.
The curious part is that the opposing sides come to contradicting conclusions, based on the same data , in this case the temperatures and CO2 levels for the last 150 years. Is there a correlation between them or not?
A.
It's not the same data though. Different researchers complete different studies and interpret the results in different ways to end up with different data. Much of it clearly ends up contradicting at least one other study. This phenomenon isn't unique to the field of global warming, either...
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: WonderingMind's youtube videos about global warming. Someone posted a link to one of these videos a while back and I ended up watching every single one. He makes it much easier to understand. "How it All Ends" is a basic overview, and is quite funny.
He reminded me a lot of Ze Frank, and then I realized he was wearing a SportsRacer Shirt.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |