DE: 100 Reasons Why Climate Change is Natural

[Duncan]

And I'm calling bull**** on this claim. Every high school physics student learns of the Wilson cloud chamber where subatomic particles are tracked by their creation of cloud trails.

Climatologists are fully aware of how cosmic particles create clouds. But my understanding is that the effect isn't significant enough to produce the results we see.

Well I guess the science is settled if that is "your understanding". No need to study it further.

[PeterMP]

once again, you are completely missing what I am saying. It is futile regardless of whether "the majority of scientists" are right or wrong. They could be and may be 100% right: their efforts to reduce CO2 and/or prevent climate change are futile.

edit: I'm intellectually spent for today. I was up all night studying for my International Politics final that I had this morning and have not slept in over 28 hours due to caffeine overload. I'm going to sleep before evening formation. Good night everyone, I'll see yall tomorrow.

and please, keep in mind, our debates are absolutely meaningless

You're not making sense. It CAN NOT be fruitless if the vast majority of scientists are right.

[PeterMP]

Very interesting part of the article....

"Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year."

alexey's video actually deals with this well.

[Larry]

You're not making sense. It CAN NOT be fruitless if the vast majority of scientists are right.

I may be going out on a LONG limb, here, but if I understand his argument . . .

He's not saying that we shouldn't reduce CO2 emissions. He's saying that even if we do, the climate will still change.

If that's what he's saying, then I even agree with him. In fact, I think everybody would.

I think everybody would agree that the statement "Climate change is natural" is true. It's the statement "Therefore, the climate change which is occurring right now is not being affected in any way by the actions of Man" that people have a problem.

But I think we'd all agree that if Klaatu comes down in his spaceship tomorrow, and he waves a magic wand and eliminates the human race and everything they've ever created from the planet, that the climate would change.

To try to use an analogy, I think he's saying that yeah, it's a good idea to have electrical codes, but we should build fire exits into our buildings, anyway, because fires are still going to happen.

[PeterMP]

I'll show one reason: If you look the warming ages seem to be at almost exactly the same time before each 100,000 years AND this one wasn't the warmest in the last 400,000 years.

The people in the field that study orbital forcings don't agree with you.

Again, feel free to comment (I've done a popular press release instead of a peer reviewed paper this time, thought changing it up might be good).

http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/13/ruddiman/

[PeterMP]

I may be going out on a LONG limb, here, but if I understand his argument . . .

He's not saying that we shouldn't reduce CO2 emissions. He's saying that even if we do, the climate will still change.

If that's what he's saying, then I even agree with him. In fact, I think everybody would.

I think everybody would agree that the statement "Climate change is natural" is true. It's the statement "Therefore, the climate change which is occurring right now is not being affected in any way by the actions of Man" that people have a problem.

But I think we'd all agree that if Klaatu comes down in his spaceship tomorrow, and he waves a magic wand and eliminates the human race and everything they've ever created from the planet, that the climate would change.

To try to use an analogy, I think he's saying that yeah, it's a good idea to have electrical codes, but we should build fire exits into our buildings, anyway, because fires are still going to happen.

Hence my switch to talking about the current climate change, which he says is still futile.

I do want to be clear about something. Some variation is fine even for us. We don't NEED a completely static climate.

Ignoring us or some other unexpected event (e.g. meteor, comet, etc.) the next drastic climate shift is suppossed as an ice age in about 50,000 years.

Let's get throught what we've done now, and I'll let the people alive in about 20,000 years decide what they want to do with the coming ice age.

*EDIT**

I'll also point out that there is no SINGLE solution to climate change. Building fire exits protects you from all fires. What you'd want to do to be proactive against warming is essentially opposite what you'd want to do w/ respect to cooling.

[ZoEd]

How about all those on the right making a mint out of ignoring it? How about all the corporations who are buying Republicans to make sure that this issue stays murky and that the status quo continues?? :doh: The ice caps ARE melting, that's no theory, you can see the pictures for yourself. All that fresh water entering into the worlds oceans is no "theory". Lots of theories flying around over "what" if anything is causing it but make no mistake, things are changing.

Ignoring what? That's the point I'm trying to make, it's a theory, an unproven one at that. This isn't just a political thing, scientists are on the fence as well. The best proof I've seen are the core samples taken from the ice caps and what I've read they show is a natural cycle of cooling and heating. It's been around for millions of years, why is it suddenly so different? Why would I spend billions as a corporation to change my practices when you can't prove to me that my ways are in fact causing massive amounts of damage to the environment. Again, this is a theory. This isn't like the coal mines dumping sulfur into the streams killing entire ecosystems. This isn't damage that can be seen from strip mining, asbestos, lead paint. A theory that could be as much natural as it is man made.

As for the ice caps melting, okay they're melting, why? CO2 gas? Prove it. We're going to initiate legislature that will cost us trillions to impliment and don't even know if it's our doing. Like I said earlier, lets start with spending trillions on the tangible things that we know we have control over and work our way from there.

Brother I'm all for being good stewards of our environment and feel strongly about seeking out renewable energy sources but I don't think passing bills and laws that will cost a **** load of money to force it down peoples throats is the answer. How about we lead by example and show people the benefits of renewable energy and conservation of our natural resources instead of the gov't cramming a bunch of bull**** down our throats.

[PeterMP]

As for the ice caps melting, okay they're melting, why? CO2 gas? Prove it. We're going to initiate legislature that will cost us trillions to impliment and don't even know if it's our doing. Like I said earlier, lets start with spending trillions on the tangible things that we know we have control over and work our way from there.

How do you suggest one go about proving it?

We KNOW that CO2 absorbs radiation of the type that is reflected out into space by the Earth. We KNOW the energy from that radiation causes the CO2 molecules to vibrate and that molecular vibrations are a form of heat.

[ZoEd]

How do you suggest one go about proving it?

We KNOW that CO2 absorbs radiation of the type that is reflected out into space by the Earth. We KNOW the energy from that radiation causes the CO2 molecules to vibrate and that molecular vibrations are a form of heat.

Don't plants need CO2 to make the good stuff we need to breathe? If the warming and cooling is cyclic why shouldn't we believe that's what we're going through right now?

For arguments sake, it's true. By God it's right there in black and white. Don't you think the money, resources and focus could still be better used to reduce the tangible things that we KNOW are destroying the environment?

[Larry]

I've been considering starting a thread of "Things that are absolutely uncontested about Global Warming". Things that are so elementary that even I know them.

It would list:

In space, the only way an object can gain or lose heat is through radiation.

CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere permits solar radiation from the sun to pass through the atmosphere, and warm the Earth.

CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere

prevents

[/u]

radiation from the Earth from leaving.

If you allow a body to receive heat, and prevent that heat from leaving, then the body's temperature will increase. (If all other things remain the same.)

But I'm not certain I could get people to admit that those statements are true.

[PeterMP]

Don't plants need CO2 to make the good stuff we need to breathe? If the warming and cooling is cyclic why shouldn't we believe that's what we're going through right now?

For arguments sake, it's true. By God it's right there in black and white. Don't you think the money, resources and focus could still be better used to reduce the tangible things that we KNOW are destroying the environment?

They do, but we are also destroying plant life on the planet so there is less of them to take in CO2, and their growth is also controlled by other factors too (water, sun, nitrogen, phosphorus (you know those things in fertilizer)).

Because there is a WHOLE BUNCH of evidence, including really basic and old science that says it isn't.

It depends. What in particular are you talking about?

Realistically, most other enviromental issues don't have the possibility of having dramatic world wide effects so in most cases if I had to chose, I'd say worry about warming first.

If, for example, we had to chose between ozone layer depeltion (one of those other things that industry stated we couldn't do because it wasn't proven) and warming, then things become a bit harder because they both have the possibility of having drastic and world wide effects.

But that doesn't appear to be the case because we appear to have dealt with the ozone thing reasonably well (though there still are CFCs being released and even many of the ones we did release are still out there waiting to reach the ozone layer).

[PeterMP]

I've been considering starting a thread of "Things that are absolutely uncontested about Global Warming". Things that are so elementary that even I know them.

It would list:

In space, the only way an object can gain or lose heat is through radiation.

CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere permits solar radiation from the sun to pass through the atmosphere, and warm the Earth.

CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere

prevents

[/u]

radiation from the Earth from leaving.

If you allow a body to receive heat, and prevent that heat from leaving, then the body's temperature will increase. (If all other things remain the same.)

But I'm not certain I could get people to admit that those statements are true.

I was going to say we KNOW the Earth has been warming for AT LEAST the last 30 years.

I mean only the average of the raw unhomogenized surface data says so, multiple groups analysis of that data says so, the raw unhomogenized satelite data says so, multiple groups analysis of that data say so, sea levels based on worldwide, but local measurements say they have been increasing, satelite measurements of sea levels say they have been increasing, and satelite measurements of sea ice say it has been shrinking.

But I figured somebody might object.

To remake the point I've made before, given the vast amount of evidence supporting that warming is happening and that green house gases cause warming, the burden proof isn't on proponents of AGW, but on skeptics to prove that CO2 IS NOT causing warming.

At least if this was essentially a discussion on any other scientific topic that's how it would work.

[Mooka]

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

Peter, you seem to be inconsistent on your views on global warming.

And you're British?

[Thiebear]

The people in the field that study orbital forcings don't agree with you.

Again, feel free to comment (I've done a popular press release instead of a peer reviewed paper this time, thought changing it up might be good).

http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/13/ruddiman/

Of the 5 warming periods (that seem to be cyclical based on the chart) ALL of them were Warmer.

The 400,000 years ago warming trend looks almost exactly as current?

And we are trying to say but THIS ONE is Man Made due to the .0002% change with farms and cows?

(and again: if its farmland/cows (C02) why is C02 getting higher and temperatures getting lower)?

That goes against the trends we should see.

I'm not sure that i believe that looking at the trends over the last 800,000 years.

AND if true, i'm not sure its such a bad thing for those again that live above Richmond/Kansas/Denver.

The only thing i've seen over the last million years is over the last 200k years.

The Colds are getting colder and the Warms are getting warmer.

i'm sure the volcano in the philipines isn't helping (and looks damn good with the black background)

[Veretax]

I think it is ignorant for man to think they have the proper climate balance figured out, when they still can't make an AC or PA system that operates correctly, , is more often wrong than accurate on even a 7 day weather forecast, and really still has such infant knowledge of the climate systems and how each climate zone interacts with the others on earth.

[NavyDave]

How do you suggest one go about proving it?

We KNOW that CO2 absorbs radiation of the type that is reflected out into space by the Earth. We KNOW the energy from that radiation causes the CO2 molecules to vibrate and that molecular vibrations are a form of heat.

We know there was a time when there wasn't any polar ice caps and Greenland was Green. so when global cooling was starting, should man (if we were pompous knowitalls, though a little skewing of the facts don't hurt as long as the agenda is met, and masters of the environment back then)spent trillions to "keep" Greenland Green???

[Larry]

We know there was a time when . . . Greenland was Green.

Guess you didn't bother to read the people who pointed out that you were wrong, the last time you made that claim, huh?

[PeterMP]

Of the 5 warming periods (that seem to be cyclical based on the chart) ALL of them were Warmer.

The 400,000 years ago warming trend looks almost exactly as current?

And we are trying to say but THIS ONE is Man Made due to the .0002% change with farms and cows?

(and again: if its farmland/cows (C02) why is C02 getting higher and temperatures getting lower)?

That goes against the trends we should see.

I'm not sure that i believe that looking at the trends over the last 800,000 years.

AND if true, i'm not sure its such a bad thing for those again that live above Richmond/Kansas/Denver.

The only thing i've seen over the last million years is over the last 200k years.

The Colds are getting colder and the Warms are getting warmer.

i'm sure the volcano in the philipines isn't helping (and looks damn good with the black background)

1. Temperatures aren't getting cooler. Coming off of a high point in 2005, we had three years that were down. We've seen this before in the context of warming. For any period greater than 6 years, the trend line has a positive slope, which is completely consistent with the models for CO2 affects.

2. Why is this one man made? Read the link. Do you have any reason to believe the guy is wrong?

3. You MIGHT be right, except for the people that live above those areas AND live near a large body of water, which is very SMALL percentage of the population.

4. There are always volcanoes like that. They aren't anything new. They don't help, but in the past, they didn't cause the changes like those talked about in the link, and there is no real reason to believe they are doing so now.

[PeterMP]

We know there was a time when there wasn't any polar ice caps and Greenland was Green. so when global cooling was starting, should man (if we were pompous knowitalls, though a little skewing of the facts don't hurt as long as the agenda is met, and masters of the environment back then)spent trillions to "keep" Greenland Green???

I'll answer your question as if Greenland was green at a point in time humans were on the Earth in the past.

Yes.

Think about the cost associated with global climate change that it takes a "green land" and turns it mostly into a block ice. How many homes would have been lost? How much infrastructure wasted? How many areas of the world would have to have a shift in their land use? Populations are going to have move. There will have to be massive shifts in land use. Etc.

Essentially, the costs associated with preventing a massive shift in climate (in either direction) are going to be easily offset by the costs of dealing with the massive shift in climate if you don't prevent it.

Assuming you have a civilization based on a climate in which Greenland is green, it essentially become well worth trillions of dollars over the long term to keep Greenland green vs. becoming essentially a block of ice.

The idea that there is ONLY costs associated with action is ignorant.

[No_Pressure]

I don't get it- whats wrong with being more environmentally conscience? Sure there are arguments to be made on both sides of global warming, but what is the point? Whether the Earth is heating up due to natural causes or man made causes, we still pollute the planet way too much, and seeing as how its the only one we've got, it only seems reasonable to want to limit the extent to which we destroy it...

Right?

Sure, there seem to be a lot of people pushing global warming that are set to profit from it as well, but regardless of politics wouldn't clean energy be nice? Wouldn't it be nice to break our dependency on oil? Wouldn't it be a good idea as Americans to foster the development of an industry that could potentially bring a lot of jobs, wealth, and accolades alike to our country?

I don't know what the point of debating is other than to say I'm right and you're wrong.

[Larry]

4. There are always volcanoes like that. They aren't anything new. They don't help, but in the past, they didn't cause the changes like those talked about in the link, and there is no real reason to believe they are doing so now.

Actually, my response to the "But look at the volcanoes" attempt to distract is to point out that I haven't seen a single proposal to eliminate volcanoes.

In short, we don't get to chose whether there are volcanoes or not.

We do get to chose whether we have CO2 from volcanoes, or do we get CO2 from volcanoes plus Man.

Further, Nature has developed system to strike a balance at which volcanoes are compensated for. That doesn't mean that volcanoes plus man will be.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Is there a driving force behind the "conspiracy?" Is someone profitting off stopping global warming, whether financially or otherwise?

I honestly don't understand what the motivation is to "make this stuff up."

So, no one can give me any reason why this "hoax" was created? Usually there has to be some motivation to make something up.

[The Evil Genius]

Guess you didn't bother to read the people who pointed out that you were wrong, the last time you made that claim, huh?

Why would he? He's been trolling the last 34,000 posts.

[alexey]

So, no one can give me any reason why this "hoax" was created? Usually there has to be some motivation to make something up.

To get those research grants, of course. Everybody knows climate research is where the $$$ is.

[mcsluggo]

It is quite possible to rationally disagree on just about any subject, and THIS subject has so many moving parts and difficult to observe variables that it isn't surprising at all that there is healthy debate....

that said, the absolute lack of rational thought used in the arguments by some of the posters in this thread is just plain shocking. As Yoda would say: "HMMmmmmm, strong is the boogar-eating-moronitude in this tread. Logic there isn't."