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 isn't anything to worry about

  1. Aug 11, 2009 #1
    I've heard a lot of scientists talk about it like it is a fact. They say that it is unnatural and caused by humans. The earth goes through times where the temperature is very low (the ice age), and times when it is higher. One of those times is right now, I can't understand why so many people believe a hypocrite like Al Gore and blindly follow his every word.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 11, 2009 #2
    maybe it's his big mansion. or his mortgage-sized power bill.
  4. Aug 11, 2009 #3
    He wastes so much money and people are willing to over look that for some reason.
  5. Aug 11, 2009 #4
    Perhaps that the sociologists and psychologists can explain it all eventually.
  6. Aug 11, 2009 #5
    Sure the temperature on the Earth varies naturally, but we have substantial evidence that suggests that the current increase in temperature is caused mainly by humans. Just because the temperature can change naturally doesn't mean that every change is natural.

    In my opinion it doesn't really matter whether it's caused by us or not, what matters is that it's likely to lead to negative consequences and that we have the means to mitigate these effects. Even if global warming was natural we should try to prevent it if we could.

    Whether Al Gore is a hypocrite or not doesn't really matter when it comes to what we should do about global warming. No intelligent person would blindly follow Al Gore, but instead research the issue and draw a conclusion themselves about the truth of his message. People shouldn't ignore global warming just because a person they don't like advocates doing something about it.
  7. Aug 11, 2009 #6
    Please do give a link to that evidence.
  8. Aug 11, 2009 #7
    I know that it doesn't matter when it comes to what action we should take, but when the leader of a movement is a lies and is hypocritical how can you trust that the entire movement has been for the best. Global warming is the main way that he makes money, he isn't doing what is best for the world, he is doing what is best for his bank account.
  9. Aug 11, 2009 #8
    The answer to your question is simple.
    It's not about trust!
    and NO ONE is "blindly following him"... at least no one of any importance.

    It does not matter who tells you a fact, a fact is a fact no matter who says it.
    That being said... did you at least try, although I know it might be hard for you, to get past the fact that it's Al Gore and at least consider what he is saying?
    If you cannot do that, then either:
    1) stop attacking global warming through Al Gore.
    2) give up on this discussion entirely because the moment we stop accepting facts because we don't like someone is the moment science fails and therefore it doesn't belong on this forum.

    If you did listen to what he says you would know that our evidence for global warming is more than just temperature rising. We can see clearly from the last 450,000+ years that temperature varies almost precisely with CO2 levels. However, unlike temperature which takes a while to react we can easily measure the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere today and it is higher than it has been in that past 450,000 year time.
    Not only that, but the moment our CO2 levels make such a huge climb "conveniently" corresponds to when humans become active in industry/automobiles ect... over a 450,000 year span the timing is much too perfect to be a mere coincidence.
    with all the CO2 we are dumping in the atmosphere is it really that hard to believe that we increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? I don't think that is an unreasonable claim at all.
    Then take a look at this graph and tell me that temperature does not depend on CO2 concentration:
    http://ryanthibodaux.greenoptions.com/files/images/co2Temperature.gif [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  10. Aug 11, 2009 #9
    Now, what would be facts indeed?
  11. Aug 11, 2009 #10
    Seriously, what are the facts. I'm open minded I will listen just give me these facts that no one else knows.
  12. Aug 11, 2009 #11
    Well I thought that we would get some "facts" about climate from you.

    Hint: peek at the other global warming thread.
  13. Aug 11, 2009 #12
    I apologize for not including them, but before I saw your two posts, I edited mine. So just look at it again.
  14. Aug 11, 2009 #13

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hey Mentors, do we really need two endless global warming/anti-global warming threads in GD?

    Do we really need even one? Though true believers from either side will never admit it, there ARE compelling arguments for both sides. I'm not impressed by anyone who acts as though they know for certain what the truth is.

    The fact that believers tend (primarily) to be split on lines of clear political affiliation also makes me squint suspiciously.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2009
  15. Aug 11, 2009 #14
    Rise the easiest way to solve this is, why do you believe that climate change is not anything to worry about? I assume that by saying it's not a problem you believe it does exist?

    I assume you've not read any papers on this, and it's been a long time since I have. However watch:


    This guys Climate Change Crock of the Week as they are thorough yet entertainin. To back up his position there are several paprs referenced, if you think he's bullgarbageting then feel free to read the papers yourself.

    This mostly explains that it is happening and we are the cause. I cant remember if he has a vid on the probable outsomes, although there are probably several papers detailing simulations and preditions.

    Unfortunately i've lost my University's access to online journal items so I cant pick them off myself.
  16. Aug 11, 2009 #15
    Thank you for at least adding in facts, you are one of the few people that I have talked to that has at least tried to use facts to make an argument.
  17. Aug 11, 2009 #16
    Here's IPCC's synthesis report from 2007;

    And heres a link to other data provided by the IPCC;

    Here is a document prepared by our energy secretary Steven Chu summarizing these reports
    http://www.energy.gov/news2009/7612.htm [Broken]

    In case you are incapable of reading and comprehension, here's George Crabtree to spell it out for you;

    Of course the EIA is a good source of data and statistics as well;
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/climate.html [Broken]

    If all this evidence isn't good enough for you, you can join myself and thousands of others in computing models to predict climate change based on data from previous decades;

    Where is the other global warming thread?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  18. Aug 11, 2009 #17
    No you cannot.

    First problem is that CO2 always lags the isotope proxies by a few hundred years and suspected positive feedback has never been substantiated in any scientific research paper.

    The second problem is that you are dealing with the interpretation of isotope proxies, which is always an affirming the consequent fallacy.

    Compare: If it rains, the street is wet. The street is wet, hence it rains.


    If it is warm, the isotope ratio is high. The isotope ratio was high, hence it was warm.

    So could there be any other reasons for variation in isotope ratio other than ambient temperature?

    see this thesis

    There is a whole world behind that.
  19. Aug 11, 2009 #18
  20. Aug 11, 2009 #19
    I know the AR4 but I did not find any evidence, only hypotheses and ideas. No; what we are looking for is fallacy-free proof that a substantial part of any warming currently or in the recent past is caused by anthropogenic activities.

    the other global warming thread
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  21. Aug 11, 2009 #20

    Watch that. (Conclusion in article comparing recent warming due to anthropogenic Co2 to that of termination 3 at 6min onwards)

    The article used is

    "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III"

    N Caillon
    Science (2003)
    Volume: 299 Issue: 5613 Pages: 1728-1731

    Although this paper isnt specifically related to anthropogenic activites they are entioned in the conclusion, some papers concering human cauysed co2 are cited as far as I can remember.
  22. Aug 11, 2009 #21


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Just a note here, but I'm neither American nor politically active.

    The other global warming thread is "I'm not worried about global warming; I'm worried about what people will do to stop global warming". After Andre accused me of spreading moral panic when I was actually demanding reliable sources, I walked out.
  23. Aug 11, 2009 #22
    In that article is found that CO2 lags the isotopes. Then it is hypothesed that there must be positive feedback. Now remember the scientific method, a hypothesis needs substantiation by a correct prediction. But to my knowledge, nowhere in the literature it has been demonstrated/proven that positive feedback can work that way. So it remains a hypothesis. And there are a lot more things going on there that did not make it to AR4

    Oh and one of the problem with Milankovitch are the mega fauna grazers in the Taimyr peninsula apart from some other problems (published in Science).

    More tomorrow.
  24. Aug 11, 2009 #23
    Read the whole paper, there are also a couple of cited articles that more specifically detail the affect of human caused CO2. I'm afraid I can't remember them off hand as it's been well over a year since I've read anything to do with this.

    However i'm starting to suspect that no 'evidence' will ever be good enough for you (it kind of reminds me of creationists and evolution, i'm sure you arent dogmatic in your skepticism but it does seem to come across like that). Nothing can ever be fully conclusive, but there is a certin point where you've got to say 'hang on now'. That point occured for me after I took an engineering module on sustainability and CO2, and read quite a few papers on this subject.

    I used to be rather skeptical but you can sit me firmly in the proponent camp now. I still dont think it's a problem because the solution will come from engineers.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2009
  25. Aug 11, 2009 #24
    I have read Caillon et al twice, years ago. Better read Karner and Muller 2000
  26. Aug 11, 2009 #25
    Interesting read, but doesnt change anything. On the whole there are more papers that are favourable to human caused climate change in recent years than not.

    I'm not going to claim I know for sure, or that i've read them all because tbh of what I have read I can't remember most of it. I just remember the outcome that I found the conclusions quite convincing.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook