99.996% of Castanetters agree: Global warming is false

[coolworx]

That is true, but climatologists are fairly evenly divided over the issue just as we find among the general public.

That is a patently false statement.

[Glacier]

That is a patently false statement.

Oh? Please post your poll results then.

[coolworx]

Here ya go...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01 ... ogists-ag/

And just as an aside, what's your "belief system" say about Ocean acidification?
Is that a also commie plot to destroy capitalism?

[Glacier]

Here ya go...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01 ... ogists-ag/

And just as an aside, what's your "belief system" say about Ocean acidification?
Is that a also commie plot to destroy capitalism?

Thanks for providing that.

That question did not ask about CAGW becuase it only asks the first two tenets; I would have answered "yes" too. When polls ask all the tenets, they get a much more divided response. The four tenets of CAGW are:
1) The world is warming.
2) CO2 is largely responsible.
3) This is bad.
4) We must do something about this.

That poll (in which 99.25% were not not climatologists answering "yes") only addressed the first two points.

As for the idea of ocean acidification, I assume you mean ocean neutralization since a basic solution that becomes less basic is being neutralized, not acidified. I fail to see what that has to do with communism or capitalism though.


http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0028983

[OREZ]

As for the idea of ocean acidification, I assume you mean ocean neutralization since a basic solution that becomes less basic is being neutralized, not acidified. I fail to see what that has to do with communism or capitalism though.

Are you saying that salt water is a base?

[Glacier]

Are you saying that salt water is a base?

Yes, but that depends on the salt involved. Some salts are alkaline and others are acidic. Others like NaCl are neutral. The ocean is most definitely alkaline or basic because the basic salts outweigh the acidic salts.

[OREZ]

Yes, but that depends on the salt involved. Some salts are alkaline and others are acidic. Others like NaCl are neutral. The ocean is most definitely alkaline or basic because the basic salts outweigh the acidic salts.

Okay. (I think that's better than your first answer)

So, are you saying that the "neutralization" of the oceans (to use your terminology instead of the commonly used one) is nothing to worry about or simply a natural cycle?

[Glacier]

So, are you saying that the "neutralization" of the oceans (to use your terminology instead of the commonly used one) is nothing to worry about or simply a natural cycle?

Those two options are not mutually exclusive. There are many factors that determine the salinity of the oceans, both man-made and natural. What the optimal pH is, I do not know. We do know from the literature that the "effect of Ocean Acidification (OA) on marine biota is quasi-predictable at best." http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0028983

[hobbyguy]

All of the discussion of global warming and whether or not it is man made, and/or how much of an effect we are having, boils down to what we know and projecting from that.

The science, that is "what we know" is evolving, as is our ability to take in the massive amounts of data.

Here is just one example of something we didn't know, that in turn poses a whole bunch of other questions, to which the answers are unknown. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28898223 I just know that that those who choose to believe that that man is having no effect on global warming/climate change will jump all over this discovery to say "see, these guys don't know what they are talking about".

What we do know is that:

1. The atmospheric greenhouse effect is real - otherwise our "climate" would be more like the that of the moon.
2. The composition of atmospheres significantly effects the greenhouse effect. Venus is a good example http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Venusatmos.html and looking at Mars can be instructive as well. http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-atmosphere-curiosity-measurements-isotopes-130718.htm
3. The climate has been warming.
4. The climate has warmed, and cooled, in the past and there is an association with CO2 levels. See Venus atmosphere.
5. There is a lot more about the earth's climate system that we don't know than we do know, particularly because of the complex interactions with both living and static contributors. The stromatolite organisms that created our oxygen rich atmosphere balanced off against the oxidization of iron (and other metals etc.) is just one example where eventually, the living organisms overwhelmed the static contributors.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Perry_Samson_lectures/evolution_atm/index.html

" Life started to have a major impact on the environment once photosynthetic organisms evolved. These organisms, blue-green algae (picture of stromatolite, which is the rock formed by these algae), fed off atmospheric carbon dioxide and converted much of it into marine sediments consisting of the shells of sea creatures.

While photosynthetic life reduced the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, it also started to produce oxygen. For a long time, the oxygen produced did not build up in the atmosphere, since it was taken up by rocks, as recorded in Banded Iron Formations (BIFs; picture) and continental red beds. To this day, the majority of oxygen produced over time is locked up in the ancient "banded rock" and "red bed" formations. It was not until probably only 1 billion years ago that the reservoirs of oxidizable rock became saturated and the free oxygen stayed in the air.

The oxidation of the the mantle rocks may have played an important role in the rise of oxygen. It has been hypothesized the the change from predominantly submarine to subaerial volcanoes may have also led to a reduction in volcanic emission of reduced gases.

Once oxygen had been produced, ultraviolet light split the molecules, producing the ozone UV shield as a by-product. Only at this point did life move out of the oceans and respiration evolved."

So organisms at high populations have, in the past, significantly changed the composition and livability of the atmosphere.

6. We are upsetting the CO2 balance. We know that there are orders of magnitude more people on earth than historical norms. By using fossil fuels, and CO2 absorbers like forests, we are disproportionately effective at upsetting that balance. How disproportionate? Ball park 64 times x our population increase. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070401201750AALTHUF

So are we totally responsible for climate change? No. Are we having a significant effect? You bet. Do we understand all the effects going on? No. Has our cumulative effect gone beyond observed historical limits? yes.

The rest is all down to whether or not you think we should ignore our contribution to atmospheric and climate change.

I find it ironic that many folks who are firmly on the side of "personal responsibility" with regard to many things/issues, seem to be on the side of ignoring our (including their own) responsibility in the changes we are observing.

[Glacier]

Slow down there, buddy. You are right that there is still much we don't know, but your comparison to Venus is ludicrous. This has already been discussed as to why you can't compare apples to oranges. There has never been an example in the history of the world where high CO2 and high temperature were a bad thing, and the only reason people think it will be a bad thing time time around is because of the naturalistic fallacy: man-made change = bad; Mother Nature-made change = good.

You are absolutely right that we should do a better job protecting the earth from the harm that we cause, but let's actually focus our energy on the known immediate threats such as de-regulation, over-fishing, and smog.

[hobbyguy]

In that regard, CO2 can be considered a proxy for this: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Air+Pollution+in+China&Form=IQFRDR#view=detail&id=048111D8879FE21C9D25ECC25C58A9A3C5049EFE&selectedIndex=90 and this: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pictures+of+deepwater+horizon+pollution&qpvt=pictures+of+deepwater+horizon+pollution&FORM=IGRE

So even if you choose not to consider global warming and climate change negatively, CO2 being considered as a pollutant, and something we need to reduce, is a good thing? Right? Less CO2 emission = less of the above. Less coal burning, less bitumen burning, less oil burning, less destruction of natural habitats, etc. etc.

[Glacier]

So even if you choose not to consider global warming and climate change negatively, CO2 being considered as a pollutant, and something we need to reduce, is a good thing? Right? Less CO2 emission = less of the above. Less coal burning, less bitumen burning, less oil burning, less destruction of natural habitats, etc. etc.

Well then let's get on reducing coal and oil. I agree. It's too bad environmentalists try to shut down every new hydro and nuclear plant that would replace the coal and oil, however.

[maryjane48]

but your comparison to Venus is ludicrous.

says who? bill o'reilly?

[Omnitheo]

There has never been an example in the history of the world where high CO2 and high temperature were a bad thing

Except for perhaps the "Great Dying" or Permian-Triassic Extinction event

[Glacier]

Except for perhaps the "Great Dying" or Permian-Triassic Extinction event

Possibly.

says who? bill o'reilly?

Scientists. You could not get an Venus sort of atmosphere on earth because we are too far from the sun. Given the fact C02 is non-linear in its effect on heating the planet, it is safe to say there would be no thermal runaway as alarmists tend to purport.