Global warming, facts pls

[Natachan]

Ten lines of of evidence that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic. 4 and 5 are pretty much game set match for the it isn't us crowd.

1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

Thanks. That's one of the things I'm looking for. This is the site I've been reading: http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp

I've also been listening to a series of lectures on audiobook. Yay YouTube! Link: http://youtu.be/5uJVkmqHIHg

[Mister Agenda]

So some background.

About 5-6 months ago I was a firm believer in the traditional climate change story.

I was a climate change skeptic at first, and it took years to change my mind, but the mounting evidence convinced me.

But I was in an environmental class (because every civil engineering student is required to take classes on environmental science, atmospheric chemistry, and water quality. Why I do not know). I also had to go to lectures from environmental PhDs. One of the lectures stated that the science was still out. He stated that some empirical models showed cooling and that data from the past few years didn't fit with the traditional warming model. My other professor wouldn't comment on temperature, as he was more concerned about changes in water pH as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The science is out on cigarettes being bad for you, too. It's possible that the link between smoking and lung cancer is coincidental or that other variables cause both smoking and lung cancer. The science is rarely completely in on anything.

So I did a bit of research and found that carbon dioxide is responsible for less than 25% of the total greenhouse effect, and human activity accounts for less than 25% of that.

That's interesting. But isn't the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and what percentage of that is anthropogenic what you really need to know? Don't you think it would tell you more if you found out that CO2 was responsible for less than 22% of the total greenhouse effect fifty years ago and human activity accounts for 60% of the 3% increase? A snap shot isn't going to tell you much.

I found that current temperatures are still no higher than those during the "medieval warm period."

Do you have a good reason to think temperatures will stop rising before they're higher than the peak of the Medieval Warm Period?

I'm currently reading a book on atmospheric chemistry. So I'm wondering what the actual facts are on this.

With your education, you should be able to understand primary sources. If you're really interested, that's the way to go.

On a related note I endorse efforts to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability. And this has promoted that. So, if it was true that climate change is somewhat overblown, is it still ok to exaggerate if it gets people motivated and acting in a more sustainable manner?

No, it's not okay to exaggerate it, doing so undermines confidence in science. The GOP is not entirely to blame for people's distrust of climate science, sensationalistic stories about it have been a contributing factor as well.

[Jaysyn]

The COSMOS episode on climate change is very informative & broke the science down enough that my 7 year old could understand it. I suggest you check it out.

I'd bet dollars to donuts your PHD lecturer wouldn't debate Mr. Degrass-Tyson about climate change.

[KichigaiNeko]

I'd bet dollars to donuts your PHD lecturer wouldn't debate Mr. Degrass-Tyson about climate change.

He just might

Isn't this what science is all about?

[Welsh cake]

We cannot falsify man made global warming though. And falsification is a necessary but not sufficient stage towards proving the validity of a hypothesis.

Another problem is scientific consensus and the curiosity to learn about our environment will always be fucked over by greedy fucking politicians with their political agendas who have contributed nothing towards our understanding of reality their whole fucking greedy lives just to screw another penny out of the hard working tax-payer and liquefy whatever remains of industry with green taxes.

Any scientist or society who dares to oppose the "mainstream" and use a little bloody scrutiny is ridiculed by these fuckers and responded to with hostility to discredit and disassociate them from their peers. Whoever heard of science without scrutiny?

If climate change is actually happening I want to learn about it, but politicians, get your dirty fucking money-grabbing fingers off my science! >:C

[/rant]

[The Grand Nudger]

Climate change is -always happening-. That we don;t percieve it has to due with the lengths of our lives. Whats at issue is not whether or not the climate is changing - that's quantifiable, and it is. Whats at issue is the impact upon that change that human beings may have. I suppose it's easy for me to accept the data we have because I actually -use- the effect commercially as part of making my living. It's hard to "not believe in something" that you are intentionally doing to great effect. I dump co2 in my greenhouse, lol. I dump alot of other stuff in there as well - if I stopped, I'd notice a change in the micro-climate.

[CindysRain]

I cannot argue this either way. I know very little about it, but I would like to. Does anyone have some reliable links regarding global warming, that I could look into?

[popeyespappy]

I cannot argue this either way. I know very little about it, but I would like to. Does anyone have some reliable links regarding global warming, that I could look into?

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

[Minimalist]

Are the glaciers melting, or is it just me?

It's not you.

[Aractus]

Yes, but Glaciers are melting due to global warming of the 19th century - even if the world had stopped warming at the very start of the 20th century the mean surface temperature would be unable to sustain most of them - glacial melting is not directly related to anthropological climate change nor 20th century climate change and are more reflective of a past era - the "little ice age" that facilitated them.

The one comment I will make is on global sea level rises - I see many a climate scientist blatantly lying and telling people that global warming causes sea level rise. Surface temperature does not drive sea level rise - it's the deep ocean temperature that does. When the deep ocean temp goes up the water expands and sea levels rise - when it cools the water contracts and sea levels drop. Here's a graph:



As you can see, sea levels have been steadily rising at essentially the same rate for the last 7,000 years despite what climate change has been doing to surface temperatures throughout that time.