The debate "The case for man made global warming" was started by
May 18, 2016, 5:15 am.
27 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 6 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
JakobBoghora posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, Kslonerdz, SwaggerPoptart, jack_tim_45, TheExistentialist, CrazePhil and 21 visitors agree.
JakobBoghora, naya23, RogueAmerican, Yanksxx21 and 3 visitors disagree.
This is a study from 2015 describing the accuracy of the climate models
The cornerstone of good science is to make good predictions based on a theory in question. So you'd expect the models which assume anthropogenic climate change to be more accurate at predicting climate than those that don't. If we look at the data, we see exactly that.
"Many of the models were extrapolated to falsity. And yes, we dont know and the easiest is to say man-made; however, this is not indicative of truth. Often overlooked are earth cycles. Oscillation cycles have massive effects upon global temperatures, and these cycles often reflect directly the temperature increases. But again, we dont know"
simply stating that there is an issue with the models doesn't make it so. Do you have any scholarly articles that substantiate your claim or are you just repeating talking points?
We also don't just use 1 type of modeling. Radiative transfer models are very new (the first study came out in 2011) and substantiated other climate models.
When we look at "Hindcasting" we can actually see that the models we use for Climate change studies are actually very accurate.
We have also substantiated models by plugging in real life events. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling
"The idea of man made warming, as i said, assumes the earth is entirely sensitive and doesn't have natural phenomenon to interfere with it"
We have a formula to anticipate sensitivity
dT= change in the Earth's average surface temperature
Delta = (°C/[W/m2])
dF= radiative forcing
"The idea of man made warming, as i said, assumes the earth is entirely sensitive and doesn't have natural phenomenon to interfere with it."
When you look at solar radiation, you don't see any increase from 1978 to present. So we can take that part out of the equation. We can also see that heat is being trapped at the CO2 spectrum (spectrum analysis). We can see that heat being the correct wattage for the warming we're seeing.
"The science ignores earths methods of regulation and causes of climate change."
The science behind Anthropogenic climate change does address the self regulating ability of the planet. That's how we know about 60% of our emissions aren't being recycled (we're overloading the ability for the earth to self regulate.
Many of the models were extrapolated to falsity. And yes, we dont know and the easiest is to say man-made; however, this is not indicative of truth. Often overlooked are earth cycles. Oscillation cycles have massive effects upon global temperatures, and these cycles often reflect directly the temperature increases. But again, we dont know.
The idea of man made warming, as i said, assumes the earth is entirely sensitive and doesn't have natural phenomenon to interfere with it. The trends often point to natural cycles, but we do not know. Modelling is the best we have, but we dont have enough data to make it accurate. The field is very immature. The data doesnt account for stagnated periods, as the hockey stick graph clearly does not.
The science predicting global warming is awful to say the very least. We're talking about billions of years of self-regulation and fluctuations. The science ignores earths methods of regulation and causes of climate change.
One of the major sources of contention for the case of Anthropogenic climate change is the occurance of "the little ice age" and the subsequent warming.
During this time frame, there were periods of significantly diminished solar activity known as the Spörer Minimum (1460-1550) and Maunder Minimum (1645-1715). While it is hard to say that the diminished solar activity during this time was solely responsible for the mini-ice age, we can safely say that the events correspond. If a reduction in solar activity can cause these small ice ages, then it stands to reason that an increase in solar radiation was likely responsible for the subsequent warming after the little ice age (this was pre-industrial times and thus anthropogenic climate change can therefore be ruled out).
If we accept the increase in temperature during pre-industrial times as being a product of increased solar radiation, then we have to accept it at as a possible explanation to today's climate change. The problem is that changes in solar radiation can account for only about 15-20% of the actual increase. Solar radiation has been analyzed since 1978 and no variation in radiation has been detected to even come close to explaining the increase in temperature that we have seen since then.
To sum up:
1) Humans are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere in significant enough amounts to overwhelm the natural CO2 cycle
2) CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas
3) Temperatures are objectively increasing at rates predicted by Anthropogenic climate change models
4) Multiple methodologies, models, and variables are used and have been eliminated in order to validate Anthropogenic climate change
5) Models which assume Anthropogenic climate change are accurately predicting climate change
6) Other factors (like solar radiation, volcanic activity, etc...) have been successfully eliminated as being key factors/being the major contributors to climate change
While these factors may not "prove" anthropogenic climate change, they do eliminate all other theories of climate change. This is the best you can hope for in science and thus the case for anthropogenic climate change as the only valid explanation for our observations is extremely strong.
We have a few things we have to look at when we look at climate change. We'll look at each one individually to prove the concept
1) humans are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
We have done spectrum analysis of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continuously since the 70's and found an increase of CO2 over those years corresponding to the estimated output of human activity. We have also analyzed the natural carbon cycle and found that our activity is simply overloading the natural cycle. About 60% of our emissions cannot be absorbed by the natural cycle. This means approx 15-18 gigatons of CO2 are "left over" after the completion of each cycle.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
In 1970 we launched IRIS satellite and in the 90's the japanese launched the IMG satellite. These satellites gathered data on the outbound radiation. The data shows a dramatic decrease in the outbound radiation at the wavelength that CO2 and methane absorb. We can confirm this build up of radiation when measuring heat. We have measured this heat increase to be about 190,260 gigawatts per year. This is consistent with the decrease in outbound radiation measured by satellites.
3) Temperatures are increasing
Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm. This is consistent with predictions made for temp increases as it correlates to CO2 increases.
4) Radiative transfer models match measurements
Radiative transfer models predict temperature increases as they relate to CO2 increases (they are useful since they eliminate other factors and we can thus see a direct correlation). The predictions from these models matches up to the actual measurements we take.
5) Conservation of Energy
Conservation of Energy modeling is an alternative attribution method that relies on the principle of conservation of energy, without assumptions about spatial warming patterns which are the primary evidence that has been used up until now. This new method is based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model which demonstrates that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of human caused (anthropogenic) warming. This new method suggests man made climate change.
If CO2 is the only contribution to global warming, why is there discrepancy between CO2 increase amd surface temperatures? It should have a steady increase. And this isnt the first warming period in human history. CO2 wasnt the cause of them. And extrapolations are highly problematic. They can make predictions as far as they want, but they dont have the consistent data to have amy accuracy.
What natural effects do you believe could be driving this increase besides the known increase in CO2 which we can detect, measure, and know the source of?
"We dont understand the climate of the earth well enough to say that CO2 is the issue. CO2 will increase temperatures, but global warming is likely a natural process."
so you agree that CO2 will increase temp, and you agree that we are releasing CO2. how is it that the CO2 we release is magically not affecting the system?
even IF it is a natural process (which I will dispute later) there is no way to avoid the conclusion that our activities are at the least contributing to it. it's not like we are burning magical CO2 that doesn't act like all other CO2
If our warming is a resultant of only CO2, then stagnation periods are absolutely nonsensical. We would have to be absorbing more energy and temperatures would need to rise.
Obviously it is. But the ramifications of global warming by the hands of man are resultant from a very immature field of study. The science behind it is abysmal. We dont understand the climate of the earth well enough to say that CO2 is the issue. CO2 will increase temperatures, but global warming is likely a natural process. All of the data is taken under the postulate that earth's surface temperature is not a result of natural process; meaning that if their is a natural cycle involved within warming of this magnitude (which is not the most severe warming the planet has experienced), it accounts for only man made global warming. We cannot distinguish between the two, and modeling is often mistepresented or not accurate with true readings.
do you agree man releases CO2 in many of our industrial activites?
do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
If and only if the earth is climate sensitive. The problem with the issue is that man made global warming is the easiest explanation to the issue. The climate patterns, mostly surface temperature, can either be man made, or natural. And honestly, we do not have the data to justify man made global warming. If it is cyclical, for example: the oscillation cycles effects on the cloudiness of the atmosphere and other factors could have a major role in rising temperatures. But nobody knows what the cause is; however, it is not likely that man is the driving force. A cloudy day and periodic cloudy days will do a lot to increase temperatures for instance, but even that we dont know.
wasnt earth mustafar a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
The Earth does naturally heat up and cool off. I highly doubt that the current situation is entirely nature though. There is much more smog and pollution in the atmosphere then there was a century ago. Deforestation has also played a large part in the increase of pollution. Engineered crops have provided a lower input of CO2 to help them survive in more arid areas to feed the populace. Many goods are shipped via semis which use crude oil which can be replaced with switching back to more environmental friendly trains. So while the industrial boom helped set the foundation for the expanse of many countries and nations, it also set the foundation of expanse for pollution and harmful environmental disasters.
Ok, thank you for your answer.
im not an expert, but I'm pretty sure there is a limit to the amount plants can absorb. in a natural setting the plants would likely be able to absorb a bit more co2. but we aren't talking about a natural setting. we are talking about a massive, industrial sized dump of co2. there simply aren't enough plants to handle that. even if they absorb more c02 they aren't even coming close to the amount we create.
I quickly typed that post. Sorry for the bad grammar.
-I have a question. When we emit Co2, plants absorb them. If we emit more Co2, wouldn't just more Co2 absorb? This was the case when China's emissions cause a forest to unaussally grow 4 inches faster.
-I am not disagreeing or agreeing with your point or am I agreeing with it. I simply do not know.
all atoms of the same element have the same # of protons, but they can have different # of neutrons that result in different weights and certain other properties. these are called isotopes.
the carbon dioxide we produce in industry is made of different isotopes then the carbon dioxide produced in nature.
the concentration of this CO2 isotope in the air is equivalent to estimates of how much CO2 we have released into the air. it is also equivalent to the extra CO2 in the air as compared to pre industrial revolution air.
if the CO2 that is almost exclusively produced by our industry is found in the air in the same amount as the extra CO2 that has been recently added, it is impossible for the additional to have have come from any other nonindustrial source.
not only are we responsible for contributing to global warming, we are responsible for the whole thing. natural climate events do not happen over the course of a single century, they happen over multiple millenia.
fact #1: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
fact #2: CO2 is in a majority of our emissions.
therefore: the majority of our emissions are a greenhouse gas, thus we are contributing to global warming.
honestly, that should be enough.
just like the classic basic logic argument we were taught in school
socrates is a man
all men are mortal
socrates is mortal
if the 2 facts are not disputed the conclusion must follow.
however I shall continue with a more technical argument