Global warming debate


by jordanfan20
Tags: debate, global, warming
jordanfan20
jordanfan20 is offline
#1
Oct7-09, 06:03 PM
P: 4
At school I am constantly called stupid, or an idiot because of my global warming skepticism.
I do not try to get into debates, but kids who think the have a good understanding of global warming try to anchor me to debate them. Although I try to avoid debate I do eventually get in them, and most of the times it results in them using ad hominem, and straw men arguments or they quote Al Gores movie, (Which for the most part is a weak portrayal of anything)

So I came here to ask if any of you guys could give me a hand in finding some material I could print out to show them if they try to make the same arguments, so here are the common arguments they have made.

1. There is a global consensus that man made global warming will cause a catastrophe if not stopped.

2. One kid says that, if ice land melts the whole world will flood. (I don't buy this since I'm pretty sure Iceland wont melt for 1000s of years, and if he is referring to glaciers sliding, this has been refuted, but it would be a great help if someone could link me to this.

3. Everyone who is a skeptic has been paid by Exon mobile.

4. The polar caps are melting, therefore man made global warming is happening and will lead to the major problems.

5. The mere .5 increase in temperature is enough to cause catastrophe.



These are their best arguments, the rest are just calling people stupid and what not.


Thanks guys.
Phys.Org News Partner Earth sciences news on Phys.org
Skyhunter
Skyhunter is offline
#2
Oct7-09, 06:34 PM
P: 1,409
Why are you skeptical of global warming?
jordanfan20
jordanfan20 is offline
#3
Oct7-09, 06:43 PM
P: 4
When the first hokey stick graph was debunked, I began to take an interest in global warming. I read different arguments surrounding many of the graphs and models used to predict temperatures. When I saw them I was shocked by how inaccurate they were and their inability to even predict temperature as of now. I was also amazed at the overwhelming number of scientists signatures confirming global warming that had no connection to climate studies what so ever.

As the years seemed to go by Al Gores movie appeared so incorrect I began to wander why so many people took it literally, and like other things I realized that many people only believed it because they thought all people believed it except the crazy skeptics.

I do not deny global warming or man made global warming I merely believe that global warming is not going to cause enormous catastrophe.

Skyhunter
Skyhunter is offline
#4
Oct7-09, 06:44 PM
P: 1,409

Global warming debate


Quote Quote by jordanfan20 View Post
1. There is a global consensus that man made global warming will cause a catastrophe if not stopped.
Here is the latest report from MIT

http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/do...PGC_Rpt180.pdf

2. One kid says that, if ice land melts the whole world will flood. (I don't buy this since I'm pretty sure Iceland wont melt for 1000s of years, and if he is referring to glaciers sliding, this has been refuted, but it would be a great help if someone could link me to this.
I think you mean Greenland not Iceland. Glaciers are losing mass. Here is a Google Earth of sea level change.



3. Everyone who is a skeptic has been paid by Exon mobile.
I assume you are not

4. The polar caps are melting, therefore man made global warming is happening and will lead to the major problems.
Melting ice is a good indicator of warming temperatures.
5. The mere .5 increase in temperature is enough to cause catastrophe.
The global temperature has already risen ~.6C and this change in climate is causing stress on ecosystems.
jordanfan20
jordanfan20 is offline
#5
Oct7-09, 06:58 PM
P: 4
The Mit Document is interesting and I'd like to do some more research on it.

but to what you were saying before

3. Yes I haven't been paid by Exon mobile, but what I meant was the prominent speculators.

4. I realize that things melting is the result in rising temperatures, however this video doesn't explain how this is not a natural process but instead a man made process. If you view temperatures of the last thousand years there are times when the earth is warm and times when the earth is cold.

5. I don't disagree that .6 increase causes stress on an ecosystem but, I am not aware that it could cause the catastrophes described by many. How do you explain why the models predicted changes above 4 degrees when co2 was doubled, yet our changes have been merely .6 degrees.
Xnn
Xnn is offline
#6
Oct7-09, 07:40 PM
P: 555
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

The above link is a technical summary of current scientific understanding regarding global warming. It is clear that average surface temperature have warmed, especially since 1950 and especially in the arctic.

The thing about global warming is that the rate of warming is so gradual that it is barely noticeable. Even over a 20 year period, it amounts to such a small amount (0.3C or 0.5F) that it is less than the typical temperature changes we experience every day.

Wether it is a catastrophe depends on if and where one is living. Canada and Russia actually stand to benefit, while places like Florida and Holland will eventually lose land to flooding. However, this is over hundreds of years or so and most all of us will be long dead before then.
Skyhunter
Skyhunter is offline
#7
Oct7-09, 07:44 PM
P: 1,409
Exxon did fund a lot of think tanks and bloggers, but they don't anymore.

The current episode of global warming is due to the enhanced radiative forcing brought on by the rise in greenhouse gases, promarily CO2, from human activities, primarily the combustion of fossil fuels.

The physics behind AGW, especially CO2 are well understood. The climate sensitivity is estimated at 2C - 4.5C for a doubling of CO2.

Here is a good thread on this forum that you might find helpful.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=307685
Xnn
Xnn is offline
#8
Oct7-09, 08:04 PM
P: 555
Quote Quote by jordanfan20 View Post
How do you explain why the models predicted changes above 4 degrees when co2 was doubled, yet our changes have been merely .6 degrees.

CO2 levels have not doubled. They have risen from about 285ppm to 386ppm.
That equates to 0.44 of a doubling (=LOG((386/285),2)-1).
Climate sensitivity over the long term to CO2 doubling is more likely about 3C/doubling.
So, we expect about 1.3C of warmth from the rise in CO2.

However, there has been a increase in cloudiness over the last century from sulfate aerosals
that has resulted in about 0.5C of cooling.

The total temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76C 0.19C.
D H
D H is offline
#9
Oct7-09, 09:31 PM
Mentor
P: 14,479
[QUOTE=jordanfan20;2382796]
1. There is a global consensus that man made global warming will cause a catastrophe if not stopped.
No. There is a consensus that the world has warmed in the last 400 years. That this is caused by man? That consensus is losing steam. That this will cause a catastrophe? No consensus.

That global warming might cause problems for humanity, whether caused by humans or not is a different question. Life is very resilient. It has endured far worse than this global warming. Modern society is a rather fragile compared to life as a whole. What global warming will do to us is a very important question.

2. One kid says that, if ice land melts the whole world will flood. (I don't buy this since I'm pretty sure Iceland wont melt for 1000s of years, and if he is referring to glaciers sliding, this has been refuted, but it would be a great help if someone could link me to this.
That the whole world will flood in the sense of the movie Waterworld is a ridiculous notion. That flooding will affect coastal areas world wide is a realistic notion. It has happened many times in the past, without human help, and it will certainly happen in the far far future, with or without human help. The key issue is how much flooding, and when, is the current global warming going to cause.

BTW, Iceland is not an issue. Greenland is an issue. Antarctica is a very big issue.

3. Everyone who is a skeptic has been paid by Exon mobile.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, so what? Does the fact that a researcher is financed by Exxon-Mobil inherently mean they are lying? This is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

More importantly, this assertion is not true. There are plenty of reasoned skeptics who do not work for or consult for "Big Oil", or "Big Anything" for that matter.

4. The polar caps are melting, therefore man made global warming is happening and will lead to the major problems.
That the polar caps are melting is not proof per se that man made global warming is happening. Think of it this way: The polar caps melted a whole lot more 10,000 years ago than they are melting right now. That the polar caps are melting is a sign that the warming that began 10,000 or so years ago is continuing. Is man-made global warming exacerbating this warming? Different issue.

Ice coverage in the Antarctic is currently on the increase. It is the northern ice cap that was getting smaller every year.

5. The mere .5 increase in temperature is enough to cause catastrophe.
Bogus. First off, what catastrophe are your friends talking about? Ask them to be specific. Secondly, the Earth has been a lot warmer than 0.5 degrees warmer than it is now. A 0.5 degree warming is not a catastrophe. A 0.5 degree increase might even be beneficial. Real harm to humanity will require more than a 0.5 degree increase.

Real harm to nature will require even more warming than a paltry 0.5 temperature increase. That said, that there are nearly 7 billion people on the Earth has already done a lot of harm to nature. We have changed the face of the planet. Focusing on the maybe/maybe not global warming problem has, in my opinion, directed attention away from a real problem.
chriscolose
chriscolose is offline
#10
Oct7-09, 09:51 PM
P: 59
I smell lots of straw man.
mheslep
mheslep is online now
#11
Oct7-09, 10:55 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Xnn View Post
CO2 levels have not doubled. They have risen from about 285ppm to 386ppm...
depending on when one starts counting of course. It's been down to 180ppm several times in the last million years.
Skyhunter
Skyhunter is offline
#12
Oct7-09, 11:27 PM
P: 1,409
Quote Quote by D H View Post
No. There is a consensus that the world has warmed in the last 400 years. That this is caused by man? That consensus is losing steam. That this will cause a catastrophe? No consensus.
Perhaps the consensus is losing steam at Wattsupwiththat, but in the scientific community, especially the climate science community, the evidence supporting AGW is growing.

http://www.thescientificworld.com/he...2007.03.91.pdf

That global warming might cause problems for humanity, whether caused by humans or not is a different question. Life is very resilient. It has endured far worse than this global warming. Modern society is a rather fragile compared to life as a whole. What global warming will do to us is a very important question.
Life is resilient true. But it takes millions of years after a major extinction event before it rebounds.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, so what? Does the fact that a researcher is financed by Exxon-Mobil inherently mean they are lying? This is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.
Actually a more accurate characterization would be a red herring fallacy known as an appeal to motive.

That the polar caps are melting is not proof per se that man made global warming is happening. Think of it this way: The polar caps melted a whole lot more 10,000 years ago than they are melting right now. That the polar caps are melting is a sign that the warming that began 10,000 or so years ago is continuing. Is man-made global warming exacerbating this warming? Different issue.
The warming that began at the beginning of the Holocene peaked about 7000 - 8000 years ago and the Earth has been cooling until the recent Anthropocene epoch.



The Arctic, until recently had been cooling for at least the last 2000 years.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=335800



Ice coverage in the Antarctic is currently on the increase. It is the northern ice cap that was getting smaller every year.
Sea ice extent has increased slightly in the Antarctic, but overall ice mass on the continent is decreasing. The Arctic sea ice extent has recovered slightly since the 2007 minimum, but thicker perennial ice is still in decline.
Skyhunter
Skyhunter is offline
#13
Oct7-09, 11:33 PM
P: 1,409
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
depending on when one starts counting of course. It's been down to 180ppm several times in the last million years.
And those doublings resulted in more than 3C, but were associated with changes in insolation and albedo flip.

mheslep
mheslep is online now
#14
Oct8-09, 12:12 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Skyhunter View Post
And those doublings resulted in more than 3C, but were associated with changes in insolation and albedo flip....
I'm not sure what you mean here when you say 'resulted in...' followed by 'but were associated with...'
Andre
Andre is offline
#15
Oct8-09, 04:26 AM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
Maybe -from seeing all symtoms in this thread- that global warming is much more interesting as a socialogical case than as climatological case. Of course it's also a splendid example of the prevailance of fallacies over science.

Meanwhile, I wonder what the evidence is, that the difference between the current average temperature and any average temperature from the past, is mainly caused by the increase of concentrations of radiative gasses gasses in the atmosphere.
Vals509
Vals509 is offline
#16
Oct8-09, 07:46 AM
P: 57
I feel that whether global warming is true or not, there is still a necessity for us to change our lifestyles. Lets face it, everyone knows that coal and oil are not unlimited and when these resources do run out, we are in a lot of trouble.
It is because of this that we must see that the concept of global warming is like a signal that our current life is not practical and should be changed before its too late. Even if more coal and oil is found, we need to see the wider implications such as petrodictatorship and general public health in particulalry polluted places like beijing.
This is why we should not underestimate the power of global warming true or not.
Skyhunter
Skyhunter is offline
#17
Oct8-09, 08:36 AM
P: 1,409
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
I'm not sure what you mean here when you say 'resulted in...' followed by 'but were associated with...'
What I was saying is that a doubling resulted in more than 3C rise in temperature, closer to 8C. Not all of that rise however was from CO2.
Skyhunter
Skyhunter is offline
#18
Oct8-09, 10:45 AM
P: 1,409
Quote Quote by Andre View Post
Meanwhile, I wonder what the evidence is, that the difference between the current average temperature and any average temperature from the past, is mainly caused by the increase of concentrations of radiative gasses gasses in the atmosphere.
Of course you do.

Quote Quote by Andre
Of course it's also a splendid example of the prevailance of fallacies over science.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Can Global Warming Cause ... Earth 88
Global warming debate General Discussion 6
global warming Earth 0
global warming Earth 5
Hurricane Season could Renew Global Warming Debate Earth 9