Global Warming Debate

[Jonathan]

One form of narrowmindedness is when people are so certain they're right that they don't take the time to stop and revise their own arguments and look for flaws.
The articles that Inked posted contain several flawed arguments that the authors could surely have spotted themselves, had they just reviewed tge arguments with a more open mind. But well, why would anyone do that if they already "know" they're right?

For instance, the Australian professor in Inked's post keep mentioning how the human contribution to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are so small compared to natural discharges of such gases. So he expects us to draw the conclusion that any global warming couldn't be man-made. Not true. He fails to take into consideration that the net influx and efflux of greenhouse gases to and from the air is in a delicate balance. With a more open mind, he might have realised that the man-made component of greenhouse gases, albeit comparatively small, in theory just maybe might have a slight potential to affect that natural balance. Like a snowflake triggering an avalanche.

Which is also the case, according to the scientific community. But the professor doesn't think that far.

[OldHippie]

I just came across this little tidbit on another board I frequent. This is all I have on it.

A Washington, D.C., resident recently came across a 1922 article that revealed early signs of climate change.

John Lockwood found a 1922 article in The Washington Post when he was conducting research at the Library of Congress. The article's headline read: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt," according to a report in the Washington Times.

The article reports "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

Lockwood said he's discovered other articles from the 1920s and 1930s on the same subject.

"I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all," Lockwood said.

[brownjenkins]

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,6820639.story

[inked]

"the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century."

So....bet not the hottest in the last 4.5 billion years !

[Nautipus]

I dont care if this thread's dead or not, I'm posting.

What about the methane hydrates on the continental slopes and shelves? Is all the hype about them true? I mean, If we do keep heating up the atmoshere, and the temperature of the water changes enough (Which would be hard) could their disassociation cause the subsequent collapse of the continental shelves? I have only heard very little about this, so If someone could fill me in....

[Jonathan]

I don't see by which mechanism methane hydrates would be able to cause the continental shelves to collapse, unless you mean that the sea level will rise (melting polar caps). It's true however that methanes are very potent greenhouse gases and by warming up the planet, we speed up their release from the ocean. It's a dangerous vicious circle that could get spiralling out of control if the temperature rise gets bad enough.

[The Gaffer]

Me neither.

Though I have heard that, as the peat bogs of Siberia thaw out, they are releasing copious quantities of methane which.... well, you know the rest.

* moves to higher ground *

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I don't see by which mechanism methane hydrates would be able to cause the continental shelves to collapse, unless you mean that the sea level will rise (melting polar caps). It's true however that methanes are very potent greenhouse gases and by warming up the planet, we speed up their release from the ocean. It's a dangerous vicious circle that could get spiralling out of control if the temperature rise gets bad enough.

Well, it would take a long time for the temperature at that depth to be affected. But what I've heard is that the methane hydrates actually are the main supportive structure of the continental shelves, and that their dissasociation could cause them to become unstable and collapse, causing tsunamis and other bad things.

[Earniel]

Never heard of that theory. Then again, that's no qualification for anything.

[Nautipus]

hehehe

I dont know though. The Earth has heated up before, but much more slowly. what would normally be happening in geologic time is taking place in a life-time. Would that precipatate different results?

[durinsbane2244]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Most people seem pretty well agreed that Global Warming is happening, though. There are some who don't agree, but I think most do. The bigger problem by far is finding a solution that will work, in my opinion. Climate change is escalating so fast and is so immense, with such far reaching implications, that solving it would be nigh impossible.

*just to jump in here rather late*
most people used to think the earth was flat. majority? doesn't mean it's true.

we've been observing the atmosphere scientifically for far too short a time to claim that something's going on of this magnitude. judging by the age of the earth, and the tiny 1 century we've been watching the atmosphere, i don't think someone can fairly say, "aaah! we've destroyed the atmosphere!"

[The Gaffer]

1) No-one's said that and
2) What's the basis for that?

There is a big issue there: the concept of performing an experiment is inconceivable. But science doesn't only work through observation of experiments, fortunately. If it did, we'd all still believe that the earth is the centre of the solar system.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by durinsbane2244

*just to jump in here rather late*
most people used to think the earth was flat. majority? doesn't mean it's true.

we've been observing the atmosphere scientifically for far too short a time to claim that something's going on of this magnitude. judging by the age of the earth, and the tiny 1 century we've been watching the atmosphere, i don't think someone can fairly say, "aaah! we've destroyed the atmosphere!"

I agree that the issue isn't whether most people believe something. However, I'm influenced by the fact that most reputable scientists believe it.

And, although we've only been directly observing climate for a few years, we have other ways of testing our theories based on the records in the earth and sky. Analysis of core samples of polar ice, for example, give us data on climatory change. And the vast preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesies that underlie global warming theory.

People aren't just 'fairly saying' it. Science is a process.

[brownjenkins]

It's really quite simple. There is less plant life on the earth these days then in the pre-industrial stage, which means less CO2 being converted. Mankind also pumps a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere than it ever did in the past. And more CO2 in the atmosphere means more retention of the heat the sun provides.

Unless you can think of some magical way for that CO2 to disappear, historical observation isn't even necessary to support the argument.

It's also true that our planet naturally goes through cold and warm stages, probably due to orbital/axis variations. But our CO2 contribution is causing change on a much smaller timeframe, hundreds, as opposed to tens of thousands, of years.

Of course, no matter what we do, significant warming will happen in the next 100 years due to population growth, even if we cut industry CO2 emissons by 100%. But, buying time will allow us to easier adjust to what is destined to be a warmer world than what it is now for hundreds of thousands of years.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

I dont care if this thread's dead or not, I'm posting.

What about the methane hydrates on the continental slopes and shelves? Is all the hype about them true? I mean, If we do keep heating up the atmoshere, and the temperature of the water changes enough (Which would be hard) could their disassociation cause the subsequent collapse of the continental shelves? I have only heard very little about this, so If someone could fill me in....

Yes, Nautipus, there is a methane hydrate theory but not with collapsing continental shelves per se. Check out the History Channel, MEGA DISASTERS series and they have a program dedicated to one scientists hyposthesis about this matter. It is interesting. His speculation is that a massive release of methane could produce significant warming and even explosive effects.

Try historychannel.com to get local airtimes and maybe even a info page or such.
--------------------------------------

sisterandcousinandaunt,

"Analysis of core samples of polar ice, for example, give us data on climatory change. And the vast preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesies that underlie global warming theory.

People aren't just 'fairly saying' it. Science is a process."

Well, yes and no. The analysis of polar ice cores show climate change over thousands of years and cycles of warming and cooling. This includes data on CO2 and CH4 productions as part of the natural cycles. These cycles have ocurred absent human causes in significant ways.

It is true that human contributions are important, but as to whether they are "causing" by "the vast preponderance of the evidence" the current global warming is really a major point at issue and IS NOT A FACT despite all the media hype. The media frenzy and collaboration of the Nobel Prize awarded to Al Gore really confuse the issue in people's minds. Al Gore may get the Peace Prize for his getting international collaboration on the issue. But that Prize is NOT a science Prize for actual scientific work. This is a remarkable distinction, but I fear that most people think it a validation of questionalble science.

As you note, science is a process. I think the answer will become clearer with more research and data. But right now the HYPE outweighs the data.
------------------

BJ,
"It's really quite simple. There is less plant life on the earth these days then in the pre-industrial stage, which means less CO2 being converted. Mankind also pumps a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere than it ever did in the past. And more CO2 in the atmosphere means more retention of the heat the sun provides.

Unless you can think of some magical way for that CO2 to disappear, historical observation isn't even necessary to support the argument."

Do you really, really mean that no amount of historical data will invalidate the argument you wish to make? That seems a pretty absolute statement for you. I think you mean it won't change your mind, since relatively that's all that matters.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Do you really, really mean that no amount of historical data will invalidate the argument you wish to make? That seems a pretty absolute statement for you. I think you mean it won't change your mind, since relatively that's all that matters.

I'm willing to listen to counter arguments.

That said, I have yet to see an argument from the other side showing how nature has ever been able to match the current rate which with we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere, or an argument that increased CO2 just doesn't matter.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

But right now the HYPE outweighs the data.

It is worth reiterating here that the Nobel Prize was shared by the IPCC, whose ongoing reviews consist of data, not hype.

The vast majority of the hype is coming from the climate change deniers.

The sad fact is that people are, and have been, influenced by hype more than by data.

Personally, I would be delighted to have my mind changed by data, but the fact is that all the data supports the hypothesis that human activity is causing climate change.

[inked]

http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Lib...le%20Ice%20Age

Glaciers come, glaciers go. Hype comes, hype goes.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I don't see by which mechanism methane hydrates would be able to cause the continental shelves to collapse, unless you mean that the sea level will rise (melting polar caps). It's true however that methanes are very potent greenhouse gases and by warming up the planet, we speed up their release from the ocean. It's a dangerous vicious circle that could get spiralling out of control if the temperature rise gets bad enough.

*Bump!*

I'm doing so because methane release into the atmosphere was very much part of the opening statement of fmr. Vice-President Al Gore, representing the Alliance for Climate Protection, to the Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. in Congress yesterday (Wednesday 28th of Jan).

The hearing, http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...ts_id=283696-1, is excellent and I recommend it to everyone!

[inked]

You guys need to watch MEGA DISASTERS more often. Methane Hydrate release is certainly a potential problem. I know 'cause it was on TV!!!!