^^ More like 42, they'll be double the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by 2050 if we go like we are and 4xCO2 by 2100.

quote:

Originally posted by QM:
A proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere mixes with rain water and acidifies it. The acid rain falls on rocks and minerals. The weathering of rocks & minerals scrubs a proportion of CO2 out of the rain. The carbon is chemically fixed tin other molecules and is precicipitated or washed into the oceans.
Eventually plate tectonics recycles theses carbonates etc and a proportion of carbon as CO2 returns to the atmosphere or ocean water.


Anthropogenic sources of CO2 have overwhelmed this.

CO2 increases the temperature of the air by trapping infrared radiation. Anybody that says the contrary is either ignorant, stupid, crazy or lying. That includes members of CA. I'll put my thermodynamics and heat transfer training against yours any day.

The most pathetic thing in this is that CO2 warming effects had been masked for decades for sulfur based particulates in the atmosphere that reduced insolation.
The dusty crap in the air modified cloud cover and pan evaporation rates went down all over the world. Water evaporation is sensitive to photons. More photons and more energetic photons help evaporation by "boosting" an H2O molecule out of the water surface and into the air above it. Less photons means less evaporation. Global dimming.

Climate change deniers are pollution deniers.
If the denier is a rich, powerful capitalist...well he has his reasons.

If the denier is some blue collar or white collar petroleum or coal employee. Well he has his reasons.

If the denier is the rest of us. Well stupidity is not a crime. It just gets you hurt.

Yeah, I think we're done here .

quote:

Originally posted by jms2788:


Yeah, I think we're done here .

Yup. Though our right wing friends will probably conclude this is liberal mumbo jumbo...

I guess I'd better get busy smoking cigars before either Global warming dries out my sticks,; or they are buried under tons of ice!

It amazes me that people still treat global warming as something you can believe in/not belive in, like a matter of faith.

Unfortunately on your side of the pond Al Gore's assumption of a position of 'global spokesperson for climate change' seems to have tied the matter up in party politics (+ of course oil, coal etc. lobbying). In england there is no such partisan siding. All political parties are making green issues one of the cornerstones of their manifestos. Most if not all people here 'believe in' global warming. Those few that don't tend to be regarded as either dangerously ignorant or deeply socially irresponsible.

quote:

Originally posted by did64:
It amazes me that people still treat global warming as something you can believe in/not belive in, like a matter of faith.

Unfortunately on your side of the pond Al Gore's assumption of a position of 'global spokesperson for climate change' seems to have tied the matter up in party politics (+ of course oil, coal etc. lobbying). In england there is no such partisan siding. All political parties are making green issues one of the cornerstones of their manifestos. Most if not all people here 'believe in' global warming. Those few that don't tend to be regarded as either dangerously ignorant or deeply socially irresponsible.

I don't think it's really that people don't believe the Earth is warming up, I believe it's due to them thinking the cost of combating climate change will hurt the national economy, which they may have a point. Will it hurt now? Yes, it will. Will it hurt in the long term? No, I don't believe it will. The cost of fossil fuels is on the rise, while the cost of alternative power, such as wind power, is decreasing. In the long run, it will actually be cheaper.

All the anti-global warming articles I've seen usually have fundamental flaws. If that article was written by a climate expert from NASA, why make a silly mistake like saying the little ice age lasted from 1100 to 1850, when it's fact that there was a warm period from 1000 to 1400? It doesn't really have much to do with the claim, but if the author is any expert, why make any small false claim? He talks about sunspots being partly to blame for the Little Ice Age and he may be correct, but it hasn't been proven. The author is making an assumption that may or may not be justified. He doesn't talk about the heightened volcanic activity at that time, which blocked out the sun.

The rest is, by he authors admission, anecdotal evidence. He talks about snow in Baghdad, but he makes no claim that is wasn't due to wind patterns or things of that nature. He didn't include anywhere to get more information, he doesn't have any type of bibliography, and the article is found on a news site. Has it been republished by any academic institution? Sometimes news organizations pick up stories that people will pay atenttion to in order to create business, no matter it if the article in 100% true or not.

Those are just a few problems with that article, there are more, but I'll leave it alone because I think I proved my points and provided academic sources.

quote:

Originally posted by Presley:
Global warming is a farce and Al Gore is a nutcase. More and more scientists are coming out to speak against the global warming theory.

The same way that more and more scientists are coming out to speak on behalf of creationism?

quote:

Originally posted by did64:
It amazes me that people still treat global warming as something you can believe in/not belive in, like a matter of faith.

This is actually an interesting philosophical problem. Global warming is, at root, a scientific issue - and a complex, highly technical one at that. (That it deals in the relatively new and inchoate science of climatology only makes things more difficult.) A layman has no choice but to accept something of this nature on others' authority - thus, faith does enter the picture. (In philosophy, there's a concept colloquially known as "blinding your opponent with science" that seems to fit here. This is a tactic used by "intelligent design" advocates to browbeat those who believe in, bur are not knowledgeable about, evolution.)

Yet, at the same time, history is rife with examples of scientific consensus being overturned. So the layman - not in a position to make a sound independent judgment - is rightly skeptical.

In such cases agnosticism and inaction would be the normal course. But one side is demanding the layman take radical, immediate action and alter his daily activities. It's little wonder there's resistance.

quote:

Originally posted by cigarman1000:
consider the fact that the keeping of weather and tempatures has only been done for about 150 years.
anything before that time is pure guesswork.

The same formulas that allow us to look beyond the recorded mark accurately "predict" what the temperatures were within that period.

quote:

i guess that this cold winter we just had is a fluke

This is an old and flat out ignorant argument. Look up climate vs. temperature.

quote:

Originally posted by Scottological: A layman has no choice but to accept something of this nature on others' authority - thus, faith does enter the picture.

Yet, at the same time, history is rife with examples of scientific consensus being overturned. So the layman - not in a position to make a sound independent judgment - is rightly skeptical.

Good points.

First a basic premise:
Getting an "A" in a philosphy course is a hell of lot easier than getting an "A" in a mathematics, physics or chemistry course.


A layman's faith. This is exploited by politicians and governments. This is exploited by parents over their children. Exploited by religion.

There are people that only read Sports Illustrated, People, the National Enquire and Harlequin Romances.
There are people that read Science magazines, science journals and science documentaries.
There are people that don't read.

Science is quite younger than history.
Overturned is a big word.

I could never understand why medical doctors of 150 years ago were so filthy.
Did germ theory overturn a scientific concencus that filth was good or did it just overturn a bunch of sawbones making a dollar out of people's injuries???

Alchemy? Sure. Overturned or developed? Today we can change elements into others.

Geocentrism? Overturned but under penalty of religious persecution.

The flat earth. The earth as a sphere was not proven by Columbus; he knew it was a sphere. This had been know for thousands of years. (shhh but not by everybody)

Newtonian physics. Still works unless you are very small or relatively very fast.

Yes that's right. But here, we have a Republican party that takes advantage of lazy minded people and uses them to divide the country. Isn't it just amazing, that STILL, after the last 7 years that these ditto heads are still blindly following their BS?

quote:

Originally posted by did64:
It amazes me that people still treat global warming as something you can believe in/not belive in, like a matter of faith.

Unfortunately on your side of the pond Al Gore's assumption of a position of 'global spokesperson for climate change' seems to have tied the matter up in party politics (+ of course oil, coal etc. lobbying). In england there is no such partisan siding. All political parties are making green issues one of the cornerstones of their manifestos. Most if not all people here 'believe in' global warming. Those few that don't tend to be regarded as either dangerously ignorant or deeply socially irresponsible.

quote:

Originally posted by QM:

quote:

Originally posted by Scottological: A layman has no choice but to accept something of this nature on others' authority - thus, faith does enter the picture.

Yet, at the same time, history is rife with examples of scientific consensus being overturned. So the layman - not in a position to make a sound independent judgment - is rightly skeptical.

First a basic premise:
Getting an "A" in a philosphy course is a hell of lot easier than getting an "A" in a mathematics, physics or chemistry course.

Hell yeah it is. Geez, I picked up philosophy as a second kinda interesting, fun major, but I'll admit even a high level philosophy course cannot compare to a math, science, or engineering course. I've noticed over the course of college that many of my friends in those major have relativly low GPA's when compared to mine and my friends in the humanities. Then I took physics and Calc II and holy sh*t, I put 3x as much time into each one of those classes than any philosophy class, even ones at the 300 and 400 level. If I put the amount of time into a 300 level philosophy course that I put into physics, it' and easy A. In physics, it's a B+ and that's with a curve. Without the curve, probably a B-. I usually get A's and A-'s, but physics and Calc II were just friggin crazy hard. Some people think I was crazy to take those classes as electives, but I like to think it made me a little more well rounded.
I would really like to take Calc III and Game Theory, but I'm not that good at math and science in the first place and I have no natural gift for it, so i might be out of my league.

quote:

Originally posted by A Work Of Art, Inc.:
Yes that's right. But here, we have a Republican party that takes advantage of lazy minded people and uses them to divide the country. Isn't it just amazing, that STILL, after the last 7 years that these ditto heads are still blindly following their BS?

I think all govt, dems and repubs, have grossly failed the scientific community in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by A Work Of Art, Inc.:
Yes that's right. But here, we have a Republican party that takes advantage of lazy minded people and uses them to divide the country. Isn't it just amazing, that STILL, after the last 7 years that these ditto heads are still blindly following their BS?

Wonderful post. Your well thought out personal attacks really bring some valued insight to the debate.

quote:

This is actually an interesting philosophical problem. Global warming is, at root, a scientific issue - and a complex, highly technical one at that. (That it deals in the relatively new and inchoate science of climatology only makes things more difficult.) A layman has no choice but to accept something of this nature on others' authority - thus, faith does enter the picture.

A good point Scott, and one that not being much of a scientist I can't quite counter.

But I will make one small amendment: When I believe a piece of scientific research it is slightly different from 'faith'. Scientific research is endlessly reviewed and verified in peer-reviewed journals. When I believe it, it is a matter of 'trust' (in the scientists involved) not 'faith'. Should I decide the matter was of such import that I wanted to dedicate a few years to studying it then I would be in a position to verify it myself. This cannot happen with faith. Good point though.

quote:

Originally posted by QM:
First a basic premise:
Getting an "A" in a philosphy course is a hell of lot easier than getting an "A" in a mathematics, physics or chemistry course.

I'd disagree. I took both calculus and philosophy high level courses and I found them about equally hard. I didn't get A's in either.

quote:

A layman's faith. This is exploited by politicians and governments. This is exploited by parents over their children. Exploited by religion.

Always was, always will be.

quote:

There are people that only read Sports Illustrated, People, the National Enquire and Harlequin Romances.
There are people that read Science magazines, science journals and science documentaries.
There are people that don't read.

True. However, I like to think I'm capable of pretty advanced thought and tend to read on that level. I'm still baffled by many issues in science, global warming included. You don't have to be an ignoramus not to get it. Even a Master's level understanding is sometimes not sufficient.

quote:

Science is quite younger than history.
Overturned is a big word.

I could never understand why medical doctors of 150 years ago were so filthy.
Did germ theory overturn a scientific concencus that filth was good or did it just overturn a bunch of sawbones making a dollar out of people's injuries???

Alchemy? Sure. Overturned or developed? Today we can change elements into others.

Geocentrism? Overturned but under penalty of religious persecution.

The flat earth. The earth as a sphere was not proven by Columbus; he knew it was a sphere. This had been know for thousands of years. (shhh but not by everybody)

Newtonian physics. Still works unless you are very small or relatively very fast.

I don't think germ theory was as much overturning a consensus as it was discovering a whole new concept. Which I think is what you're driving at.

In any case, on principle, you certainly don't believe in science by consensus, do you? If a majority of scientists say X, that does not in and of itself constitute proof of X. Likewise, just as the Rush Limbaugh crowd prays on the ignorance of its constituency, so too does the other side.

Another thing: the truth or falsehood of climate change theory says nothing about the intrinsically political solutions to it - if any. Can we stop the trend by driving Priuses and separating our newspapers from our glass on recycling day? Of course not. Ought we grind the whole of industry to a halt and go live under trees? Of course not. Or maybe we should just build 10,000 nuclear reactors and forget all this coal and oil nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by did64:
But I will make one small amendment: When I believe a piece of scientific research it is slightly different from 'faith'. Scientific research is endlessly reviewed and verified in peer-reviewed journals. When I believe it, it is a matter of 'trust' (in the scientists involved) not 'faith'. Should I decide the matter was of such import that I wanted to dedicate a few years to studying it then I would be in a position to verify it myself. This cannot happen with faith. Good point though.

You're right. Deference to credentialed authority can take two forms - faith or trust. However, I think with many people it is closer to faith than trust. Not everyone, but large numbers of them. This is especially true when there is no true consensus. Which side to you choose when distinguished minds disagree? Well, at heart are you a Harvard man or a Yalie?

Fact is, while there's little question temps have gone up globally for some period of time, serious scientists differ on whether it is totally anthropomorphically generated or partially. And if the temps are rising, by how much? What impact will it have on sub-Saharan Africa? How about suburban Miami? And would it be a net benefit to humanity if we lost X-million acres of jungle but gained the ability to grow bananas in Sweden? There is a spectrum of conclusions on this and I'm not prepared to choose one over another.

Scott, I'm curious to know what philosophy courses you found to be as hard as math because that wasn't my experince at all, but of course everybody and every school is different.

Indeed Scott, differences of opinion abound.

What we can be sure of though is that if we require all scientific arguments to be either empirically demonstrable beyond all doubt or a priori truths then that pretty much devalues the entirety of human knowledge.

It is beyond doubt that I am certain of absolutely nothing. (Apart, of course, from the existence of Rene Descartes). How's that for a philosophical paradox?

quote:

And would it be a net benefit to humanity if we lost X-million acres of jungle but gained the ability to grow bananas in Sweden?

Bananas in Sweden eh? Maybe I'll start burning some fossil fuels