Humans causing Global warming - solid evidence

07/29/2009 03:34:33 PM · #227

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Do you also need to know how the refrigerant got into your freezer before you'll accept that it's responsible for keeping your Phish Food cold?

We're not talking about fish food. Try some more dodging and dissembling. That attempt was lack luster.

Read it again until you get it.

FireBird

07/29/2009 03:38:12 PM · #228

Originally posted by scalvert:

Read it again until you get it.

Don't need to. I got you a long time ago.

07/29/2009 03:39:16 PM · #229

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by scalvert:
The maximum surface temperature of Mercury is only 700 K despite its much closer proximity to the sun.

And maximum is what I'm discussing.

Then you're having a different conversation than the rest of us. The temperature of Venus as a whole is more than double that of Mercury, and hotter on average than even the maximum of Mercury despite the latter's close orbit to the sun. The difference is CO2, and how it got there is completely irrelevant to the resulting effect.

07/30/2009 10:27:44 AM · #230

The more you compare Venus, Mars, Mercury and other planets to support the idea of man made global warming on Earth the dumber this thread gets. Very few deny that earth is getting hotter, the question is, is it man made or a natural cyclical occurrence that has been going on for centuries before man existed? So I'm not even going to make these comparisons or even reply to them. OMG Venus has lots of CO2 and Venus is hot!!!! OMG that certainly must mean that Earth is just like Venus and we're all doomed!!! Give me a break. Lets leave that argument for the experts shall we?

I hear the argument: Why wait for proof even if there's a slight chance that this crazed, politically driven environmentalist movement has some merit. By the time we get the proof we might all be dead!!! OMG again..

I think this is fear mongering. The same kind of fear mongering that convinced the world that Iraq has WMD's. Invoking mass hysteria to fulfill a political agenda.

I ask you, is this precaution worth keeping poor nations (specifically in Africa) underdeveloped? Where hundreds of thousands die from poor living conditions, starvation...etc. If you deny that the Environmentalist movement cripples 3rd world growth I suggest you do some serious reading before you jump on here saying it isn't true.

07/30/2009 10:46:16 AM · #231

Originally posted by Timosaby:

The more you compare Venus, Mars, Mercury and other planets to support the idea of man made global warming on Earth the dumber this thread gets.

The more you say that, the dumber you sound. The only reason Venus was brought up is that someone questioned whether CO2 results in a hotter atmosphere. I'm pretty sure the CO2 on Venus wasn't manmade, and equally sure the atmosphere doesn't care where it came from.

07/30/2009 11:19:18 AM · #232

Originally posted by scalvert:

I don't personally know you but it's quickly becoming quite obvious that you have a 1+2=4 type of logic so I'm asking myself why i even bother but here goes anyway, I'm THAT bored.

FROM YOUR WIKI LINK:
".....there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere."

So tell me again, how did you conclude that CO2 caused the warming of Venus? WATER EVAPORATION.... not CO2. and then you so smugly demand that I read it again? No bud, you read it again. Your conclusion that Co2 caused the warming is INCORRECT. Even if Venus's atmosphere is filled with Co2 doesn't mean the Co2 caused it. I'll say it again and this time try to actually read it. CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSALITY. Its actually a quite common misconception. Let me spell it out this time. Just because we observe substantial amounts of Co2 in Venus's atmosphere, scientifically, we cannot immediately conclude that the Co2 was the cause of the warmer climate there.

From your beloved wikipedia:

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation#Correlation_and_causality

Right there under COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS about correlation and causality. You can only make that inference about correlation and causality when its clear cut, like height and age, they correlate nicely, and have a causal relationship. But just because two things correlate, does not mean one variable causes the movement of the other. In finance and statistics (which is the field I work in), it is a well known fact that correlation between asset classes exist, but that does not mean that because these two asset classes correlate one must be driving the other, it COULD be, but does not have to be.

It has not been proven that an increase in Co2 causes warmer climates. In fact, it has been proven that in a warmer climate, the ocean releases more Co2 into the atmosphere (hence the correlation). So the warming happens first, then Co2 follows. Which supports an earlier comment from a fellow DPCer about the 800 year lag between temperature changes and Co2 levels. How can Co2 be the cause if it lags behind climate change by 800 years? Explain to me how a cause can lag by 800 years after its effect?

Message edited by author 2009-07-30 11:27:39.

07/30/2009 11:56:41 AM · #233

Originally posted by Timosaby:

FROM YOUR WIKI LINK:
".....there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere."

So tell me again, how did you conclude that CO2 caused the warming of Venus? WATER EVAPORATION.... not CO2. and then you so smugly demand that I read it again? No bud, you read it again. Your conclusion that Co2 caused the warming is INCORRECT. Even if Venus's atmosphere is filled with Co2 doesn't mean the Co2 caused it. I'll say it again and this time try to actually read it. CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSALITY. Its actually a quite common misconception. Let me spell it out this time. Just because we observe substantial amounts of Co2 in Venus's atmosphere, scientifically, we cannot immediately conclude that the Co2 was the cause of the warmer climate there.

From the very same Wikipedia link you quoted: "In the absence of the greenhouse effect caused by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature at the surface of Venus would be quite similar to that on Earth." Is that not clear enough for you? Evaporation of water was the source of the CO2, NOT the cause of warming. A car left running in a closed garage would release toxic CO, but it's the CO that kills you, not the car. It wouldn't matter if the CO came from a faulty furnace or was pumped in by an assassin (manmade). Like I said... read it again, and then heed your own advice on causality.

FocusPoint

XIAOMI Redmi Note 8 Pro

07/30/2009 12:20:09 PM · #234

I am going to put my two cents here,

Birds make nests, and we called it "Woow, how cute, it's the nature"... Human being makes buildings and we go "Wooow... horrible, destroying the world"

Now, my main question is, aren't we included into nature. Just we have consciousness, are we in "others" category, something like "came from space" and invaded the earth?

Those who believe in God, we are designed this way. Trust me, earth will be gone sooner or later, with or without our help. All those cute animals, they will be all dead in some thousands or millions of years later. Do we want to go with the earth? About everything in this world designed for us to use them, take advantage from and grow more and expend (I must add, "expend" the healthy way of course. It comes by time, with more learning)

To learn, improve, build, discover... and consume during the process what Human is. We can't start living in trees and in caves again (although could happen, that's not the point), the point is, we are acting normally. During our distraction, we learn and adjust. Protect as much and continue.

Global warming? This is a HUGE planet, everything we do comes from earth, goes to earth. Nothing extra we do. Volcanoes, wildfires... tsunamis... Sun. Those are the ones mainly responsible for main changes in this world.

...and that's what I think.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

07/30/2009 12:39:45 PM · #235

"Is that not clear enough for you? Evaporation of water was the source of the CO2, NOT the cause of warming"

Then what caused the water to evaporate in the first place? Certainly not Co2, that's the point I'm trying to make, Co2 is a byproduct of a warmer climate rather than a root cause. As the planet warms, greenhouse gasses (Water vapor and Co2) increase, so whats the root cause then? The released gasses or the warmer temperature? I'm arguing that the warmer weather happens first, then the whole greenhouse effect takes place. So the question is what caused the initial increase in heat? The answer is: fluctuations in solar activity.

Consider this timeline:
Temperature increases to critical levels because of factor X (The Sun) -> Large bodies of water evaporate -> Water vapor & Co2 released into the air until the atmosphere contains critical levels of greenhouse gasses.

So a warmer planet has higher Co2 levels, did the Co2 cause the heat? NO.

Your timeline looks like this:

Co2 causes temperature to increase -> Water evaporates -> Water vapor & Co2 are released again? How does that even make sense? Also you nimbly dodged my point about the observed 800 year lag between climate change and Co2 levels in the atmosphere.

Who cares what the temperature on Venus would have been? Venus is not Earth, the breakdown of gasses on Venus are not like Earth. On what basis are you comparing? I wont make the comparison based on a wiki link, I'd rather ask a specialist. I refuse to be that naive.

I'm against the notion that human kind are the cancer of the earth.

Message edited by author 2009-07-30 12:40:15.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

07/30/2009 01:22:20 PM · #236

Originally posted by Timosaby:

I'm against the notion that human kind are the cancer of the earth.

Maybe not, but we're one Hell of a bad rash at least, the way we are today.....

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

07/30/2009 01:29:57 PM · #237

Frankly, I think a more pressing issue is what we're doing to each other rather than what we're doing to the environment.

Flash

Nikon D700

07/30/2009 01:45:43 PM · #238

Originally posted by Timosaby:

Exactly. (bold highlight mine).

eqsite

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

07/30/2009 01:52:46 PM · #239

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Timosaby:
"Is that not clear enough for you? Evaporation of water was the source of the CO2, NOT the cause of warming"

Then what caused the water to evaporate in the first place? Certainly not Co2, that's the point I'm trying to make, Co2 is a byproduct of a warmer climate rather than a root cause. As the planet warms, greenhouse gasses (Water vapor and Co2) increase, so whats the root cause then? The released gasses or the warmer temperature? I'm arguing that the warmer weather happens first, then the whole greenhouse effect takes place. So the question is what caused the initial increase in heat? The answer is: fluctuations in solar activity.

Consider this timeline:
Temperature increases to critical levels because of factor X (The Sun) -> Large bodies of water evaporate -> Water vapor & Co2 released into the air until the atmosphere contains critical levels of greenhouse gasses.

So a warmer planet has higher Co2 levels, did the Co2 cause the heat? NO.

Exactly. (bold highlight mine).

It's a positive feedback loop. Some minor warming (from whatever cause) causes increased evaporation which releases extra CO2 which increases the rate of warming which increases the rate of evaporation which increases the rate of CO2 release, etc.,. It may have happened over millions or billions of years on Venus. The point is that small changes in the rate of CO2 released into the atmosphere may result in dramatic changes.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

07/30/2009 02:09:02 PM · #240

Originally posted by Timosaby:

Then what caused the water to evaporate in the first place? Certainly not Co2, that's the point I'm trying to make...

It doesn't matter what caused the water to evaporate, just as it doesn't matter who turned the key on a car in a parked garage. What matters is that the released carbon gases are bad news for living things. If you want to argue for water vapor, see here. If you're obsessed with the 800 year lag issue, see here. And if you're pinning your hopes on solar radiation, see here. Oh, and one more in case Flash pops in with his traditional dissenting scientist. Note that these are not Wikipedia, but well-cited direct links to the "specialists."

Flash

Nikon D700

07/30/2009 02:12:37 PM · #241

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Timosaby:
"Is that not clear enough for you? Evaporation of water was the source of the CO2, NOT the cause of warming"

Then what caused the water to evaporate in the first place? Certainly not Co2, that's the point I'm trying to make, Co2 is a byproduct of a warmer climate rather than a root cause. As the planet warms, greenhouse gasses (Water vapor and Co2) increase, so whats the root cause then? The released gasses or the warmer temperature? I'm arguing that the warmer weather happens first, then the whole greenhouse effect takes place. So the question is what caused the initial increase in heat? The answer is: fluctuations in solar activity.

Consider this timeline:
Temperature increases to critical levels because of factor X (The Sun) -> Large bodies of water evaporate -> Water vapor & Co2 released into the air until the atmosphere contains critical levels of greenhouse gasses.

So a warmer planet has higher Co2 levels, did the Co2 cause the heat? NO.

Exactly. (bold highlight mine).

It's a positive feedback loop. Some minor warming (from whatever cause) causes increased evaporation which releases extra CO2 which increases the rate of warming which increases the rate of evaporation which increases the rate of CO2 release, etc.,. It may have happened over millions or billions of years on Venus. The point is that small changes in the rate of CO2 released into the atmosphere may result in dramatic changes.

In an earlier post in this thread I had a link to an article that essentially stated the same position bold highlighted above. The graphs used when actual comparisons of Co2 vs temperature were different by a pixel or two - indicating that what appeared as as a causal relationship of Co2 to temperature was actually a causal relationship of temperature to C02. Meaning that the graphs showed that a rise in temperature preceeded a rise in Co2. If this is true, then my Co2 contribution is not the root cause of global warming. Some other root cause is.

Now my Co2 contribution may be problematic, but it is not the root cause of Global Warming.

07/30/2009 02:37:48 PM · #242

Scalvert, i can google articles and "well cited" links that prove my point as well because, as you'll find, this is an issue under debate. I can post you links for each one you linked here that supports the other side of the argument.

"It doesn't matter what caused the water to evaporate"

How can it not matter? We're trying to pinpoint the root cause here. What a silly statement. "Don't matter where the gas came from but the gas be bad" Right. Not interested in the main cause of the gasses being emitted in the first place? Well aren't you in blissful ignorance. If i was arguing that greenhouse gasses are good, maybe you'd have a point in not caring what causes emissions. We're talking about whether this greenhouse effect is natural or man made, in which case the root cause is the main point. So it does matter. Boy am I glad you aren't a scientist.

I haven't read your links, i will, someday.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/30/2009 03:19:26 PM · #243

Originally posted by Flash:

Now my Co2 contribution may be problematic, but it is not the root cause of Global Warming.

What's problematic is your repeated black & white approach: looking for "THE root cause," when a single cause does not apply to all events. It's well known (and expected) that CO2 levels historically lag temperature increases, but you fail to comprehend what that actually means. The initial temperature increase builds up CO2 levels (the lag), but once in the atmosphere, the CO2 retards heat dissipation (the Greenhouse Effect), resulting in positive feedback that drives further increases and a much longer warm period. Since we're now pumping huge volumes of CO2 directly into the atmosphere, we're skipping right over any natural cause and lag period that would otherwise be required to raise atmospheric CO2 levels, and going directly to the consequences.

Let's try an example: say you have an area with native cattle and lions. Under normal circumstances, the populations will generally be at equilibrium and the abundance of grasses will be determined by the weather. However if an unusually cold winter or disease kills nearly all of the lions, then the cattle population may grow so fast that they wipe out the grass completely. The root cause in that case may have been disease or the cold weather, but it's still the cattle that directly eliminated the grass... even if the weather is a primary factor. Now if humans suddenly added tens of thousands of domestic cattle to the area, it would equally outpace the lions' ability to keep up and the result would be the same â�� minus the lag of several generations that would normally be required to build up the cattle population. It makes absolutely no difference to the grass where the cattle came from. Climate critics are effectively trying to deny that bringing in lots of domestic cattle is a big problem because the historical cycle of grass loss was always natural, preceded by harsh winters or disease and lagged cattle populations by several generations. Of course they did!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/30/2009 04:28:50 PM · #244

Originally posted by Timosaby:

Frankly, I think a more pressing issue is what we're doing to each other rather than what we're doing to the environment.

The consider the residents of The Maldives -- average elevation 1.5 meters above mean sea level ...

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

07/30/2009 04:30:52 PM · #245

Ok then that settles it. I'll warm up the cave you bring the chips... VIVA MALDIVES!

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

07/30/2009 04:34:10 PM · #246

A book that y'all may be interested in.

Cool It. The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming

The author puts everything into economic terms. He talks about reducing CO2 emissions and much, much, more.

07/30/2009 05:11:34 PM · #247

Originally posted by Timosaby:

Scalvert, i can google articles and "well cited" links that prove my point as well because, as you'll find, this is an issue under debate.

Good luck with that. It would be a good idea to read the links first before you try to find a counterpoint. The issue is NOT under debate within the field of climatology (that's a myth ironically perpetuated by those who claim scientists and governments all over the world are complicit in perpetuating a myth). There is virtually unanimous consensus (97%) among the experts in the field.

Originally posted by Timosaby:

"Don't matter where the gas came from but the gas be bad" Right. Not interested in the main cause of the gasses being emitted in the first place?

Your initial contention was that climate change isn't CO2 driven, but now your argument seems to be that we don't know where the CO2 comes from. In the past, it obviously had to be natural since humans weren't industrialized (and apparently a process that takes 800 years or so). But now that humans are pumping 27 million tons of it into the atmosphere every day, looking for the source is a bit like O.J. Simpson looking for the killer. :-/

07/30/2009 06:34:21 PM · #248

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Timosaby:
Scalvert, i can google articles and "well cited" links that prove my point as well because, as you'll find, this is an issue under debate.

Good luck with that. It would be a good idea to read the links first before you try to find a counterpoint. The issue is NOT under debate within the field of climatology (that's a myth ironically perpetuated by those who claim scientists and governments all over the world are complicit in perpetuating a myth). There is virtually unanimous consensus (97%) among the experts in the field.

Originally posted by Timosaby:
"Don't matter where the gas came from but the gas be bad" Right. Not interested in the main cause of the gasses being emitted in the first place?

Your initial contention was that climate change isn't CO2 driven, but now your argument seems to be that we don't know where the CO2 comes from. In the past, it obviously had to be natural since humans weren't industrialized (and apparently a process that takes 800 years or so). But now that humans are pumping 27 million tons of it into the atmosphere every day, looking for the source is a bit like O.J. Simpson looking for the killer. :-/

Serious reading comprehension issues. My point has not changed from the start, how many times can i possibly repeat this? Co2 does not drive climate change but is a byproduct of climate change. Do you even read my response or just the first 3 words? I think I'm done with discussing climate change on a photography forum. Seriously. I somehow ended up on Venus.

07/30/2009 06:50:22 PM · #249

Originally posted by Timosaby:

My point has not changed from the start, how many times can i possibly repeat this? Co2 does not drive climate change but is a byproduct of climate change.

Then stop asking what's causing the CO2 to be released. According to you, it shouldn't matter since CO2 is merely a byproduct of warming and does not cause warming itself. Then again, the evidence does not support your assumption at all.