An Inconvenient Truth

[Phenomanul]

Look RuffnReadyOzStyle... I don't have to explain my opinions to you... because they are just that.. my opinions.

I could enter a ridiculously long discussion to address several of your points but frankly, I've already stated my position on several occasions....

There is a thread on evolution in this forum where I discuss in great detail as to why I believe that claiming the age of the earth is not a matter of absolute certainty. I actually don't care whether it's 4.4 billion years old or 6,000-10,000 years old. All I know, is that I believe GOD's hand was behind creation. You may disagree or whatever..... Just realize that I'm en led to my opinion just as you are en led to yours.

As for the names of scientists, I'll have to look them up. All I know is that I attended a conference on the subject and several scientists (climatologists, geologists, astronomers alike) defended the position that global warming was a natural cycle that has been altered slightly by the industrialization of the human race. You do realize that volcanoes, water vapor, earth's weakening magnetic field (which humans cannot be solely blamed for) and the solar cycle all significantly impact "global warming" paramenters...

Just for the record. I do believe that our industrialization has impacted the environment and that we are continuing to impact earth's natural cooling/warming cycle as we speak. That would make me a proponent of.... you guessed it "global warming"... I however, realize the magnitudes of the numbers that we are dealing with and rarely give the media or politicians any leverage on the matter for swaying my views on the data at hand...

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Look, Phenomanul, your post suggests that I am not aware of "the magnitudes of the numbers that we are dealing with". I'm an ecologist and I too know exactly what we're talking about. In fact, I seem to be the only one around here who ever quotes any numbers, so maybe you should rethink your superior at ude.

The fact that you mention volcanoes suggests that you don't know what you are talking about. Volcanoes contribute very little to greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to human activity. For example, Krakatoa, the largest volcano in 150 yrs, contributed less than 2% of the US's current annual CO2 emissions. Overall, volcanoes contribute about 0.15Gt CO2/yr, compared to human activity's 14Gt/yr, which is 1% of what we humans produce. Also, volcanic production of CO2 is part of the natural carbon cycle, and before we started overloading the cycle those emissions were absorbed by sinks. It is the overloading of the carbon cycle, not CO2 by itself, that is the problem. Overloading the cycle means that most of what we do cannot be absorbed by carbon sinks like forests and the ocean and that is why the CO2 is building up in the atmosphere. It is a long-lived molecule, so CO2 we put into the air today is still around in 80 years. It doesn't help that we (humanity) continue deforestation on a massive scale - deforestation by slash and burn is responsible for twice the CO2 emissions of the entire fleet of land vehicles on the planet (!) - and that oceanic productivity is threatened by changes in sea surface temperatures, rising ocean acidity and changing organism distributions as a result of the warming climate.

And yes, I do know that water vapour also has greenhouse effects (depending on where it is in the atmosphere, and in what form), and that solar cycles affect climate. None of that is in dispute. Nor is the fact that we have raised CO2 levels by over 30% in 150 years, and in doing so have taken the earth significantly out of it's natural range over the last 10,000 years.

Anyone who listens to the media or politicians about anything scientific without going to primary sources is a fool.

Notice that I never questioned your right to believe and have an opinion on whatever the you want, all I said is don't call it science. Faith/opinion and science are as far apart as black and white, and muddying the two together is dangerous. If you want to talk about Darwinian evolution, or why Intelligent Design is junk science, let's go.

Why the do people keep intimating that I want to take away their right to an opinion? I don't, and even if I did I couldn't, so WTF. What I would like to see is people bringing facts into play, citing respected sources, making cogent arguments. There's not very much of that going on. Have your opinions, play with them, enjoy them to the fullest, but also realise that without some sort of factual basis, they mean very little in what is a SCIENTIFIC DEBATE.

Oh, and strictly speaking it's "enhanced global warming". Without global warming, there would be no life on this planet.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Gotta say that I really love these people who come in guns blazing, assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about. Ecology, which is the study of natural systems, relationships and processes, is my area of specialisation, my goddamn career, so if you think I don't know what I'm talking about you are sorely mistaken. I'm not saying that I'm a genius or infallible or anything like that, I'm certainly not, but I'm not just some turkey spouting out his rear end either.

Hit me with facts, theories, ideas, arguments I haven't come across. Surprise me with new ideas, or the latest study that condradicts whatever it may be, and let's actually have a meaningful discourse! The last three months all I have gotten from the skeptics in here is the same tired old ideas wheeled out every few days - the "yes it's happening but we're not the cause" argument, volcanoes and solar cycles, the global conspiracy corrupting peer-review, Steve Milloy/Richard Lindzen/Prof Gray/Myron Ebell/etc., and some phantom idea about the West having to give bucketloads of money to China. Pulease. Freshen it up people. Challenge me a little.

Oh, and if you feel like an interesting read, why not take a look at the Wiki on climate change skepticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skepticism

I AM NOT representing it as an unbiased primary source, it is a Wiki and thus open to interpretation by the individual, but it is an interesting read and a decent summary of the arguments of both sides.

Enjoy.

[Phenomanul]

Look, Phenomanul, your post suggests that I am not aware of "the magnitudes of the numbers that we are dealing with". I'm an ecologist and I too know exactly what we're talking about. In fact, I seem to be the only one around here who ever quotes any numbers, so maybe you should rethink your superior at ude.

The fact that you mention volcanoes suggests that you don't know what you are talking about. Volcanoes contribute very little to greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to human activity. For example, Krakatoa, the largest volcano in 150 yrs, contributed less than 2% of the US's current annual CO2 emissions. Overall, volcanoes contribute about 0.15Gt CO2/yr, compared to human activity's 14Gt/yr, which is 1% of what we humans produce. Also, volcanic production of CO2 is part of the natural carbon cycle, and before we started overloading the cycle those emissions were absorbed by sinks. It is the overloading of the carbon cycle, not CO2 by itself, that is the problem. Overloading the cycle means that most of what we do cannot be absorbed by carbon sinks like forests and the ocean and that is why the CO2 is building up in the atmosphere. It is a long-lived molecule, so CO2 we put into the air today is still around in 80 years. It doesn't help that we (humanity) continue deforestation on a massive scale - deforestation by slash and burn is responsible for twice the CO2 emissions of the entire fleet of land vehicles on the planet (!) - and that oceanic productivity is threatened by changes in sea surface temperatures, rising ocean acidity and changing organism distributions as a result of the warming climate.

And yes, I do know that water vapour also has greenhouse effects (depending on where it is in the atmosphere, and in what form), and that solar cycles affect climate. None of that is in dispute. Nor is the fact that we have raised CO2 levels by over 30% in 150 years, and in doing so have taken the earth significantly out of it's natural range over the last 10,000 years.

Anyone who listens to the media or politicians about anything scientific without going to primary sources is a fool.

Notice that I never questioned your right to believe and have an opinion on whatever the you want, all I said is don't call it science. Faith/opinion and science are as far apart as black and white, and muddying the two together is dangerous. If you want to talk about Darwinian evolution, or why Intelligent Design is junk science, let's go.

Why the do people keep intimating that I want to take away their right to an opinion? I don't, and even if I did I couldn't, so WTF. What I would like to see is people bringing facts into play, citing respected sources, making cogent arguments. There's not very much of that going on. Have your opinions, play with them, enjoy them to the fullest, but also realise that without some sort of factual basis, they mean very little in what is a SCIENTIFIC DEBATE.

Oh, and strictly speaking it's "enhanced global warming". Without global warming, there would be no life on this planet.

Did you even bother to see what my position was???

Gotta say that I really love these people who come in guns blazing, assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Who said anything to the contrary? All perception of being belittled is being generated solely by you. I never inferred what you just accused me of implying.

I simply stated that some prominent scientists from my University don't believe that the human impact on climatology is as significant as it is being made out to be by either the media or certain politicians... is the phenomena present, yes. Are humans completely at fault, no. <--- Their defense (not mine)

I still fail to see why you are arguing with me on the matter considering it wasn't a right or wrong type of statement to begin with. It was simply an observation from a symposium I attended while enrolled at MIT.

You then proceded to call me a liar....

Not to mention at this point you should feel sheepish for having preached all that innecessary data to the choir.... Re-read my last post..... especially the part where it starts off "Just for the record"...

BTW the primary climatological impact from volcanoes doesn't even stem from the tonnage of CO2 emissions... first and foremost volcanic eruptions tend to 'cool' the earth due to the flux of particulates that shield the sun's effective radiation. Next comes the impact from sulfur emissions... SO2 has a much higher emissivity than CO2 and does a much better job of trapping radiant heat reflected by the earth. Finally comes CO2. In the end volcanoes disrupt any ocillatory consistency in the earth's heating/cooling cycle. They along with large meoterites would be considered the wildcards. That was all I was trying to say...

Really you didn't need to throw a fit... or get all tied up in a knot.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Yup, I read your post three times. And I noted your position. And what I am trying to point out is that you intially suggested that "Several professors at my university backed global warming theories... and another group, just as renowned... didn't", which suggests that the scientific community is equally divided on the matter of anthropocentic EGW. The facts say not. There is a global scientific consensus amongst peak scientific organisations, and a small but vocal group of skeptics.

I however, realize the magnitudes of the numbers that we are dealing with and rarely give the media or politicians any leverage on the matter for swaying my views on the data at hand...

That, to me, looks like a suggestion by you that I am regurgitating the second hand, useless views of politicians and the media, and/or don't understand the scope of the subject. I object to that.

My post was not only directed at you, it was more generally directed at xray, yoni, 101A, and all the others who keep running the same tired at me. You've got to understand, I've been battling their ignorance on this subject in the political forum for months now. Actually, I think your position is quite reasonable, except the implication that the scientific community is still equally divided on the matter, and I apologise if I was too harsh.

Oh, and yes, I am aware of the cooling effect of aerosols, and of the studies that show that volcanoes actually cool the earth. However, you mentioned volcanoes, and most skeptics use them as a furphy for why humans are not driving climate change, so I just had to set that one straight. The fact that you understand this is a good thing. Kudos to you. Glad to see that someone around here actually takes the time to look into things properly.

Oh, and there are no fits here. It's just mental exercise for me. Getting the frustration out. Think of it as going to the gym, but for my brain...

When did I call you a liar? Please point that out, because I certainly had no intention to call you a liar. Argue with you maybe, but not that.

While you're at it, please point me to your evolution thread. I wanna have a read of what you said, as you obviously have more than two brain cells to rub together.