We do NOT know if the Little Ice Age was a planet-wide phenomenon. All we know is that year-round temperatures IN EUROPE were lower.
It could have been colder in Europe and warmer in the Tropics, for all we know.
Poll: Global Warming - are humans the main cause?
- Thread starter rcronk
- Start date
We do NOT know if the Little Ice Age was a planet-wide phenomenon. All we know is that year-round temperatures IN EUROPE were lower.
It could have been colder in Europe and warmer in the Tropics, for all we know.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
I hate to intrude, but I believe this was meant to be plainly a survey thread, not a debate. So what if we keep debating to one of the other threads on AGW?
I voted no. While we can do an awful lot of things, compared to the Earth we are really quite small. The thing is, it really doesn't make any difference if humans are the main cause. As long as we have any effect at all, we are an extra factor that can cause changes, and this needs to be taken seriously. For example, volcanoes might give off more greenhouse gas as humans, but if you have volcanoes and humans, what happens then?
Because of this, I think the poll is badly worded. It is not correct to ask if we are the main cause, what you should ask is if we can have a significant effect on the environment.
Because of this, I think the poll is badly worded. It is not correct to ask if we are the main cause, what you should ask is if we can have a significant effect on the environment.
As far as it goes I would agree that AGW is a reality.
The reason I think this is that none of the opposing arguments have convinced me otherwise. We know that CO2 will contribute to the greenhouse effect. We know that we are burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, so "short circuiting" the carbon cycle and increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. What's not to get?
My favorite opposing arguments are; that it's all very complicated and we can't possibly know whats really going on, it'll cost a lot of money to try and fix, China and india and the developing nations shouldn't be allowed to use coal etc. in one breath and the evil AGW conspiracist are trying to force china and india to stop using coal and sell them lots of expensive solar cells instead. These are mostly really political arguments of course, that's because I haven't really seen any sound scientific ones.
I should come clean about a conflict of interest, I am an engineer who specialises in renewable energy. Regardless though, if someone can show me that AGW isn't real I will happily change my mind. I think renewable energy and sustainability are good things to do whether or not AGW is real.
The reason I think this is that none of the opposing arguments have convinced me otherwise. We know that CO2 will contribute to the greenhouse effect. We know that we are burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, so "short circuiting" the carbon cycle and increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. What's not to get?
My favorite opposing arguments are; that it's all very complicated and we can't possibly know whats really going on, it'll cost a lot of money to try and fix, China and india and the developing nations shouldn't be allowed to use coal etc. in one breath and the evil AGW conspiracist are trying to force china and india to stop using coal and sell them lots of expensive solar cells instead. These are mostly really political arguments of course, that's because I haven't really seen any sound scientific ones.
I should come clean about a conflict of interest, I am an engineer who specialises in renewable energy. Regardless though, if someone can show me that AGW isn't real I will happily change my mind. I think renewable energy and sustainability are good things to do whether or not AGW is real.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I'm convinced of the reality of AGW (no surprise there, I guess).
Two main reasons : the coherence of greenhouse science, as Big Les put it, which predicts warming as CO2-load increases; and events over the last few decades, which demonstrate that the warming will be noticeable.
I know enough about history - it's more my thing than science is - to recognise that what's happening now, in terms of climate change, is not normal. And there's a ready and well-established explanation to hand - the greenhouse effect. That's pretty much all I need to convince me.
If climate change turns around and cooling kicks in for a decade, I'll be un-convinced. I said that ten years ago, and I stand by it.
Two main reasons : the coherence of greenhouse science, as Big Les put it, which predicts warming as CO2-load increases; and events over the last few decades, which demonstrate that the warming will be noticeable.
I know enough about history - it's more my thing than science is - to recognise that what's happening now, in terms of climate change, is not normal. And there's a ready and well-established explanation to hand - the greenhouse effect. That's pretty much all I need to convince me.
If climate change turns around and cooling kicks in for a decade, I'll be un-convinced. I said that ten years ago, and I stand by it.
Ok - I believe we have enough votes and arguments to move to the next step. I now ask you to provide brief supporting and opposing arguments to any and all of the statements below. Include specific citations (not a link to a 2000-page pdf, for example) or your contribution will not be added to the list. ETA: The poll is not closed, feel free to continue to vote and even add missing arguments to the list below, we're just switching focus. ETA: Feel free also to vote for which of these arguments on each side is the strongest. I may start a poll in another thread once this list settles down that asks people to vote on which arguments are the strongest, but we'll do it unofficially for now.
What I hope to end up with is a list of arguments for and against AGW that have citations for and against each argument. I will gather information for a while and then re-post the lists below with citations supporting or opposing each argument included.
I also welcome comments about logical fallacy that is used in each of the statements below.
I hope that this will be a good truly objective starting point for people to begin their own research. I also hope that by arguing against the arguments and detaching the arguments from individuals, we can eliminate personal attacks and arguing past each other that tends to happen at times. Let the citations and fallacy accusations begin!
Please refer to the items below by number/letter in your responses.
Remember that this is NOT a debate thread - it's a survey and data collection thread. Do not make comments about another comment, just add your own citations and information to the items below. Thanks.
Arguments for AGW:
1. Global warming is a natural process, but human emissions of Co2 have been proven by comprehensive research to be speeding up the process.
2. The data (and ice sheet reports etc) showing a rapid change over a short time, and one that apparently correlates with the advent and ramping up of human industrialisation.
3. When I first heard about global warming, I was agnostic; however, a few weeks' research showed me just how this fit in with what I already knew about how the climate worked. For me, this is not a standalone theory unrelated to anything else that I have to evaluate from scratch; it's relatively obvious given the other things I already knew before I ever heard of global warming.
4. Melting ice sheets and methane bubbling out from lakes in the Russian arctic.
5. There have been several reasons for warming and cooling in the past, but the theory is that those other causes aren't a factor at the moment.
6. Never underestimate the human capacity to destroy.
7. We do NOT know if the Little Ice Age was a planet-wide phenomenon. All we know is that year-round temperatures IN EUROPE were lower. It could have been colder in Europe and warmer in the Tropics, for all we know.
8. As long as we have any effect at all, we are an extra factor that can cause changes, and this needs to be taken seriously. For example, volcanoes might give off more greenhouse gas as humans, but if you have volcanoes and humans, what happens then?
9. We know that CO2 will contribute to the greenhouse effect. We know that we are burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, so "short circuiting" the carbon cycle and increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
10. The coherence of greenhouse science which predicts warming as CO2-load increases; and events over the last few decades, which demonstrate that the warming will be noticeable
11. History shows that what's happening now, in terms of climate change, is not normal and there's a well-established explanation - the greenhouse effect.
Arguments against AGW:
A. Climate warming and cooling happens independently of human influence. Human activity may speed up the process, but that does not mean it is the main cause.
B. Models aren't validated with past data and are full of pre-set constant to make it fit.
C. CO2 is a follower to warming.
D. CO2 contributed by man is a negligible portion of total C02 in the atmosphere.
E. There is no physic explanation about how CO2 can increase temperature in a system like earth.
F. Natural cycles of climate explain most or all of recent temperature changes.
G. The CO2-as-a-driver of climate change is extremely weak. Pollution, soot, "Asian brown clouds", man's changes in land use, these do have quantifiable effects.
H. The main cause of the global temperature, of course, is the sun.
I. The planet has gone from Medieval Warm Period-->Little Ice Age-->Now. Prior to that there have been several cycles of ice ages to warm periods.
J. The [current] temperature can't be shown to be higher than the Medieval Warm Period
K. Land-use changes may show human inhabited areas to be warming, this is a rather small area compared to the size of the globe.
L. Gases come out of solution as temperature rises. Atmospheric CO2 levels tend to follow temperature change, not lead it.
M. The atmosphere is roughly proportional to the thickness of a piece of paper wrapped around a basketball. I think water(clouds, oceans) moderates global temperature, not humans.
N. Compared to the Earth we are really quite small.
O. While CO2 increased during 1940-1975, sun activity went down and so did temperature.
What I hope to end up with is a list of arguments for and against AGW that have citations for and against each argument. I will gather information for a while and then re-post the lists below with citations supporting or opposing each argument included.
I also welcome comments about logical fallacy that is used in each of the statements below.
I hope that this will be a good truly objective starting point for people to begin their own research. I also hope that by arguing against the arguments and detaching the arguments from individuals, we can eliminate personal attacks and arguing past each other that tends to happen at times. Let the citations and fallacy accusations begin!
Please refer to the items below by number/letter in your responses.
Remember that this is NOT a debate thread - it's a survey and data collection thread. Do not make comments about another comment, just add your own citations and information to the items below. Thanks.
Arguments for AGW:
1. Global warming is a natural process, but human emissions of Co2 have been proven by comprehensive research to be speeding up the process.
2. The data (and ice sheet reports etc) showing a rapid change over a short time, and one that apparently correlates with the advent and ramping up of human industrialisation.
3. When I first heard about global warming, I was agnostic; however, a few weeks' research showed me just how this fit in with what I already knew about how the climate worked. For me, this is not a standalone theory unrelated to anything else that I have to evaluate from scratch; it's relatively obvious given the other things I already knew before I ever heard of global warming.
4. Melting ice sheets and methane bubbling out from lakes in the Russian arctic.
5. There have been several reasons for warming and cooling in the past, but the theory is that those other causes aren't a factor at the moment.
6. Never underestimate the human capacity to destroy.
7. We do NOT know if the Little Ice Age was a planet-wide phenomenon. All we know is that year-round temperatures IN EUROPE were lower. It could have been colder in Europe and warmer in the Tropics, for all we know.
8. As long as we have any effect at all, we are an extra factor that can cause changes, and this needs to be taken seriously. For example, volcanoes might give off more greenhouse gas as humans, but if you have volcanoes and humans, what happens then?
9. We know that CO2 will contribute to the greenhouse effect. We know that we are burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, so "short circuiting" the carbon cycle and increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
10. The coherence of greenhouse science which predicts warming as CO2-load increases; and events over the last few decades, which demonstrate that the warming will be noticeable
11. History shows that what's happening now, in terms of climate change, is not normal and there's a well-established explanation - the greenhouse effect.
Arguments against AGW:
A. Climate warming and cooling happens independently of human influence. Human activity may speed up the process, but that does not mean it is the main cause.
B. Models aren't validated with past data and are full of pre-set constant to make it fit.
C. CO2 is a follower to warming.
D. CO2 contributed by man is a negligible portion of total C02 in the atmosphere.
E. There is no physic explanation about how CO2 can increase temperature in a system like earth.
F. Natural cycles of climate explain most or all of recent temperature changes.
G. The CO2-as-a-driver of climate change is extremely weak. Pollution, soot, "Asian brown clouds", man's changes in land use, these do have quantifiable effects.
H. The main cause of the global temperature, of course, is the sun.
I. The planet has gone from Medieval Warm Period-->Little Ice Age-->Now. Prior to that there have been several cycles of ice ages to warm periods.
J. The [current] temperature can't be shown to be higher than the Medieval Warm Period
K. Land-use changes may show human inhabited areas to be warming, this is a rather small area compared to the size of the globe.
L. Gases come out of solution as temperature rises. Atmospheric CO2 levels tend to follow temperature change, not lead it.
M. The atmosphere is roughly proportional to the thickness of a piece of paper wrapped around a basketball. I think water(clouds, oceans) moderates global temperature, not humans.
N. Compared to the Earth we are really quite small.
O. While CO2 increased during 1940-1975, sun activity went down and so did temperature.
Last edited:
Harpoon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 304
I cast a yes vote, warily.
I don't believe we are the major cause of the planet's continued warming. But we are contributing to the warming process, so I believe we are a responsible agent. If there's a tipping point in the interglacial cycle that could be, in fairness, referred to as a Big Thaw, our actions may be speeding its arrival, and possibly faster than other species and selected human institutions may be able to cope with.
I support the argument listed as AGW:1
However, another argument that should be added to the "con" column: "AGW is happening; we are the major cause; but so what? Where is the scientific evidence that a warmer world, in the long run, is really such a bad thing for the entire ecosystem? "
I don't believe we are the major cause of the planet's continued warming. But we are contributing to the warming process, so I believe we are a responsible agent. If there's a tipping point in the interglacial cycle that could be, in fairness, referred to as a Big Thaw, our actions may be speeding its arrival, and possibly faster than other species and selected human institutions may be able to cope with.
I support the argument listed as AGW:1
However, another argument that should be added to the "con" column: "AGW is happening; we are the major cause; but so what? Where is the scientific evidence that a warmer world, in the long run, is really such a bad thing for the entire ecosystem? "
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
I agree that the questions should be more specific; I answered "yes" and assumed, as Safe-Keeper did, that anthropogenic global warming was meant.
You did a pretty good job of compressing my response to its essential ideas, but I'd like a chance to craft it a bit more. I'll look at it and hone it a bit and post again soon.
I think this (what you're doing) is a pretty good idea. It's a process likely to lead to some truth, and might clear up misconceptions- perhaps on BOTH sides- as to precisely what the arguments are, and precisely what people have in mind when they talk about "anthropogenic global warming." If folks will stick to the rules and go step by step, we might get some clarity in this conversation, and it certainly will be less rancorous than it has been so far.
You did a pretty good job of compressing my response to its essential ideas, but I'd like a chance to craft it a bit more. I'll look at it and hone it a bit and post again soon.
I think this (what you're doing) is a pretty good idea. It's a process likely to lead to some truth, and might clear up misconceptions- perhaps on BOTH sides- as to precisely what the arguments are, and precisely what people have in mind when they talk about "anthropogenic global warming." If folks will stick to the rules and go step by step, we might get some clarity in this conversation, and it certainly will be less rancorous than it has been so far.
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
Here you go:
3. Anthropogenic global warming fits together with too much other science and other well-known data to be trivially wrong. Examples include (but are not limited to) thermodynamics, geophysics, solar astrophysics, and the economics of power generation. In other words, it's consistent with other knowledge.
3. Anthropogenic global warming fits together with too much other science and other well-known data to be trivially wrong. Examples include (but are not limited to) thermodynamics, geophysics, solar astrophysics, and the economics of power generation. In other words, it's consistent with other knowledge.
Last edited:
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Regarding 10, the "coherence" element is essentially covered by 3 (in either of its drafts 
). As to events demonstrating that the effect of AGW is significant, I would point to the fact that global warming has become an increasingly prominent issue in purely human terms - by which I mean more and more people are paying attention to it. Events could easily have made it go away - which is what most people wish it would - but they haven't.
Climate change is natural, and works both ways. What we've seen over the last three decades is climate change in a consistent direction - warming. As was predicted before the event by AGW - which is not conclusive, but does carry some weight.
). As to events demonstrating that the effect of AGW is significant, I would point to the fact that global warming has become an increasingly prominent issue in purely human terms - by which I mean more and more people are paying attention to it. Events could easily have made it go away - which is what most people wish it would - but they haven't.Climate change is natural, and works both ways. What we've seen over the last three decades is climate change in a consistent direction - warming. As was predicted before the event by AGW - which is not conclusive, but does carry some weight.
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Global warming is a myth. Here's why:
In the Bible, God brought a great flood that killed everyone on earth except Noah and his family. After the flood, God made a rainbow as a promise that he would never destroy the earth by flood again. So every time you see a rainbow, you can chuckle to yourself, secure in the knowledge that global warming will not cause ocean levels to rise and flood the earth.
In the Bible, God brought a great flood that killed everyone on earth except Noah and his family. After the flood, God made a rainbow as a promise that he would never destroy the earth by flood again. So every time you see a rainbow, you can chuckle to yourself, secure in the knowledge that global warming will not cause ocean levels to rise and flood the earth.
My no vote is very tentative. My main issue is the 800 year CO2 -Temp lag. In particular I struggle with the lag at the end of warm periods.
If the earth starts cooling well before the CO2 starts to drop it strongly suggests to me the system is much more complex than a simple CO2/Temp relationship.
But hell I'm just a dumb biochemist, what would I know.
If the earth starts cooling well before the CO2 starts to drop it strongly suggests to me the system is much more complex than a simple CO2/Temp relationship.
But hell I'm just a dumb biochemist, what would I know.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The system certainly is more complicated than that, but CO2 plays an important role.
During the normal glacial/interglacial cycle atmospheric CO2-load responds to climate-change caused by orbital variations - the Milankovich cycles. CO2 acts as a positive feedback, not the primary cause.
In the current situation we are directly injecting enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, so in this case increased CO2-load is the primary cause of climate-change.
The two circumstances are completely different.
A little bit more now
.