Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Global warming debate

  1. Oct 7, 2009 #1
    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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 7, 2009 #2
    Why are you skeptical of global warming?
  4. Oct 7, 2009 #3
    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.
  5. Oct 7, 2009 #4
    Here is the latest report from MIT

    http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt180.pdf [Broken]

    I think you mean Greenland not Iceland. Glaciers are losing mass. Here is a Google Earth of sea level change.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kgCYhU5ISwI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param [Broken] name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kgCYhU5ISwI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

    I assume you are not

    Melting ice is a good indicator of warming temperatures.
    The global temperature has already risen ~.6C and this change in climate is causing stress on ecosystems.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  6. Oct 7, 2009 #5
    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.
  7. Oct 7, 2009 #6


    User Avatar


    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.
  8. Oct 7, 2009 #7
    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.

  9. Oct 7, 2009 #8


    User Avatar

    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 0.76°C ± 0.19°C.
  10. Oct 7, 2009 #9

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

  11. Oct 7, 2009 #10
    I smell lots of straw man.
  12. Oct 7, 2009 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    depending on when one starts counting of course. It's been down to 180ppm several times in the last million years.
  13. Oct 7, 2009 #12
    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/headeradmin/upload/2007.03.91.pdf [Broken]

    Life is resilient true. But it takes millions of years after a major extinction event before it rebounds.

    Actually a more accurate characterization would be a red herring fallacy known as an "[URL [Broken] to motive.
    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.



    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  14. Oct 7, 2009 #13
    And those doublings resulted in more than 3C, but were associated with changes in insolation and albedo flip.

  15. Oct 8, 2009 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not sure what you mean here when you say 'resulted in...' followed by 'but were associated with...'
  16. Oct 8, 2009 #15
    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.
  17. Oct 8, 2009 #16
    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.
  18. Oct 8, 2009 #17
    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.
  19. Oct 8, 2009 #18
    Of course you do.

  20. Oct 8, 2009 #19
    Then why don't you tell it finally?
  21. Oct 8, 2009 #20
    John Tyndall already did. Modern physics has confirmed it. You simply refuse to believe it in your quest for a black swan.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook