Marcuse
10th January 2010, 01:10 PM
What do you found your scepticism regarding AGW on? :covereyes
AGW=Anthropogenic Global Warning=Manmade Global Warming
I am myself probably one of the most sceptical persons alive but i find that it is very likely that manmade global warming is a fact, and i'll tell you why i lean towards that notion.
Forget about Al Gore and Climategate, forget about all the very-easy-to-manipulate-diagrams, the speculations and "climate models" and forget that:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Temperature_changes
Forget about all that even if it would be true, and just ponder some basic facts.
"Although fossil fuels have their origin in ancient biomass, they are not considered biomass by the generally accepted definition because they contain carbon that has been "out" of the carbon cycle for a very long time. Their combustion therefore disturbs the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass
I'm not a scientist, but i know some crucial things that is rarely mentioned in the climate debate, or at least not made clear. The ecosystem on the planets surface is a delicate balance of many factors we cannot (yet) fully understand or control etc because there are so many parameters involved, and each and one of them makes a more or less important difference. Though there is one parameter that we do have control over, that makes an empirically measurable difference/effect, and that is the fact (parameter) that man has invented technology that makes it possible to bring fossil substances up to the earths core.
Rethorically one could call the extraction of fossil fuels "gravediggery" but i won't do that. :rolleyes:
The carbon cycle is the key to understanding the climate change and AGW.
http://library.thinkquest.org/11226/why.htm
There are many pictures on the web showing the carbon cycle, on many of them, you will find factorys and cars included. These pictures are misleading since cars and factorys cannot be regarded as parts of the "natural" carbon cycle. Combustion engines and factories are manmade inventions. Thus the CO'2 they add are manmade.
Fossils, be it petroleum or dinosaur bones have no natural part in the biological and ecological systems anymore, it is dead fossilized organic material. During time periods of millions of years they have slowly exited the planets ecosystem and coal cycle and been stored deep in the earth as "fossile fuels" (oil, coal, gas). Now we are responsible for bringing them back up again, at a very fast rate in comparison to the rate they are formed. We are also burning them in engines for example. For every amount of these fossile fuels that we burn we create a surplus of CO'2 that has no natural part in the carbon cycle and no other lifeforms have any use of this combustion of fossile fuels (exept for pets), the surplus CO'2 just floats around in our athmosphere with nowhere to go.
Another important factor is the deforestation of the planets surface. Basically we add CO'2 to the athmosphere and we remove the important parts of the ecosystem that could absorb it.
Why would this make our planet warmer?
The surplus CO'2 prevents a certain amount of energy from the sunlight to be reflected out of the athmosphere again. This is in fact one reason to why we have a temperate climate on the planet in the first place. The amount of energy (heat) that stays in the athmosphere is depending on the amount of CO'2 in the athmosphere. The more greenhouse gasses the more sunenergy/heat will stay and the warmer the "greenhouse" will get.
Note that nothing of this is evidence of AGW but provided the commonly known facts above, do you find it likely or unlikely that the human species, with the use of technology have caused and are causing effects on the temperature of the planets athmosphere?
I like to point out that this question is something very different from debating wheather dowsing works or not or if Sylvia Brown can talk to dead people etc. It definately has another level of importance but that often seems to be foreseen. I mean , screw dowsing and screw Sylvia Brown! Screw climate?
/Lars
PS: Note that i don't consider wikipedia as a trustworthy source of information, though in this case the information is quite commonly known i guess; about the carbon cycle and fossile fuels and CO'2. You find any trusthworthy information pointing to the contrary i'd love to see that.
AGW=Anthropogenic Global Warning=Manmade Global Warming
I am myself probably one of the most sceptical persons alive but i find that it is very likely that manmade global warming is a fact, and i'll tell you why i lean towards that notion.
Forget about Al Gore and Climategate, forget about all the very-easy-to-manipulate-diagrams, the speculations and "climate models" and forget that:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Temperature_changes
Forget about all that even if it would be true, and just ponder some basic facts.
"Although fossil fuels have their origin in ancient biomass, they are not considered biomass by the generally accepted definition because they contain carbon that has been "out" of the carbon cycle for a very long time. Their combustion therefore disturbs the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass
I'm not a scientist, but i know some crucial things that is rarely mentioned in the climate debate, or at least not made clear. The ecosystem on the planets surface is a delicate balance of many factors we cannot (yet) fully understand or control etc because there are so many parameters involved, and each and one of them makes a more or less important difference. Though there is one parameter that we do have control over, that makes an empirically measurable difference/effect, and that is the fact (parameter) that man has invented technology that makes it possible to bring fossil substances up to the earths core.
Rethorically one could call the extraction of fossil fuels "gravediggery" but i won't do that. :rolleyes:
The carbon cycle is the key to understanding the climate change and AGW.
http://library.thinkquest.org/11226/why.htm
There are many pictures on the web showing the carbon cycle, on many of them, you will find factorys and cars included. These pictures are misleading since cars and factorys cannot be regarded as parts of the "natural" carbon cycle. Combustion engines and factories are manmade inventions. Thus the CO'2 they add are manmade.
Fossils, be it petroleum or dinosaur bones have no natural part in the biological and ecological systems anymore, it is dead fossilized organic material. During time periods of millions of years they have slowly exited the planets ecosystem and coal cycle and been stored deep in the earth as "fossile fuels" (oil, coal, gas). Now we are responsible for bringing them back up again, at a very fast rate in comparison to the rate they are formed. We are also burning them in engines for example. For every amount of these fossile fuels that we burn we create a surplus of CO'2 that has no natural part in the carbon cycle and no other lifeforms have any use of this combustion of fossile fuels (exept for pets), the surplus CO'2 just floats around in our athmosphere with nowhere to go.
Another important factor is the deforestation of the planets surface. Basically we add CO'2 to the athmosphere and we remove the important parts of the ecosystem that could absorb it.
Why would this make our planet warmer?
The surplus CO'2 prevents a certain amount of energy from the sunlight to be reflected out of the athmosphere again. This is in fact one reason to why we have a temperate climate on the planet in the first place. The amount of energy (heat) that stays in the athmosphere is depending on the amount of CO'2 in the athmosphere. The more greenhouse gasses the more sunenergy/heat will stay and the warmer the "greenhouse" will get.
Note that nothing of this is evidence of AGW but provided the commonly known facts above, do you find it likely or unlikely that the human species, with the use of technology have caused and are causing effects on the temperature of the planets athmosphere?
I like to point out that this question is something very different from debating wheather dowsing works or not or if Sylvia Brown can talk to dead people etc. It definately has another level of importance but that often seems to be foreseen. I mean , screw dowsing and screw Sylvia Brown! Screw climate?
/Lars
PS: Note that i don't consider wikipedia as a trustworthy source of information, though in this case the information is quite commonly known i guess; about the carbon cycle and fossile fuels and CO'2. You find any trusthworthy information pointing to the contrary i'd love to see that.