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

News Global warming truth or fiction?

Is global warming for real

Poll closed Sep 4, 2007.
  1. Of course it is, scientists don't lie!

    31.3%
  2. No

    3.1%
  3. No it's a plot by scientists to make money out of a myth

    3.1%
  4. Maybe maybe not

    28.1%
  5. It's not caused by CO2 you fools but something else :rolleyes:

    21.9%
  6. It's not even happening, have you seen the weather lately?

    3.1%
  7. Huh?? Get off my land and stop worrying my sheep!

    9.4%
  1. Jul 6, 2007 #1
    http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2739751.ece [Broken]

    Interesting article on global warming from the liberal rags, most interesting is the figures in the UK, many people still it seems aren't on board with the global warming thing, and many think there actually isn't scientific consensus? Which is confusing to me.

    Anyway I thought this article in the paper would be interesting and the article fuels the GW debate, all comments welcome :smile:

    Anyone willing to argue Co2 contributes nothing to global warming and it's all just hot air? Or are we all on board now?

    What's your view, and have you been converted by the scientific propaganda yet?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 6, 2007 #2
    I stay away from any debate on Global Warming, but I just have to get this out of me.

    I'm neither a "supporter" nor an anti-GW activist, but I find statements like "there is no scientific backing to GW and there is nothing to worry about" similar to "smoke like crazy till you get lung cancer."

    Oh, and these so-called debates and discussions on this topic on almost every internet forum on the planet irks me.
     
  4. Jul 6, 2007 #3
    Are you English Neutrino, because I could understand why you would be fed up of hearing about it if you are, but then there is a news story every day about it atm, so it's almost an obsession in this country lately. You can't hide from it...
     
  5. Jul 6, 2007 #4
    No I'm not English, but I'm probably as irritated as one. :rolleyes: I'm not undecided about which group to join, either. I just try to keep my contribution to GW, or a "potential-GW," as little as possible.
     
  6. Jul 6, 2007 #5

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Delete "scientists" from your third option, and insert "middle and upper level management," and we've got a deal.
     
  7. Jul 6, 2007 #6
    No one takes any notice of business on any side of the debate? i don't understand your point?
     
  8. Jul 6, 2007 #7

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Bureaus, centers, departments of "this & that," institutes, laboratories, exist primarily to continue existing, i.e., raking in the funding from whatever sources are available; it is the job of the middle and upper level managements of these "businesses" (they are operated under business models to exhibit a net 'in the black') to point scientific staffs' efforts in the directions most heavily funded.
     
  9. Jul 6, 2007 #8
    Oh in that case I see I thought you meant the oil industry or something, you can vote for the scientists are just playing a money making scam on us all then :smile:.

    I disagree, there's plenty of money on the con side as well, it depends though in which country you live or are prepared to work.

    The overwhelming scientific consensus is not convincing for you then?

    By the way if people are worried that the poll doesn't exactly reflect their opinion, the comments are superfluous really.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2007
  10. Jul 6, 2007 #9

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The "overwhelming" managerial, political, financial, legal, media consensus is not particularly convincing.

    Hit the journals --- what you'll find are remarks in introductions and conclusion/discussion sections of papers that include conditional statements regarding climate hypotheses --- "If ____________, then __________, but the work presented in this paper is not conclusive." These statements are digested for executive summaries, deleting "ifs, thens, and buts" and presented to the media and funding sources.

    Has sea level risen over the 20th century? Yes. Has the CO2 content of the atmosphere increased over the second half of the 20th century? Yes. Has the IPCC accounted for the mass of water displaced from five million square kilometers of wetland reclamation over the 20th century in their global mass balance for water? No. For the 10-30m drop in ground water levels around the world? No. For decreases in biological productivity sequestering carbon as a consequence of agriculture and commercial fishing? No. For a meteorological temperature record that was never designed nor intended as a study of the time dependence of a scalar field? No.
     
  11. Jul 6, 2007 #10
    Well It is still a theory and projections are not meant to be prophetic, no scientist cliams his projection is accurate there is a considerable diversity of opinion on just how much C02 will effect global warming, they are merely educated guesses.

    I have seen discussions on this subject, in fact the last one was in Politics in PF, and there is a significant debate but a lot of the counter claims have been convincingly debunked, well at least to my mind, by no means all, but the pressure is really on science on the other side to come forth with something convincing within 50 years, then of course the media will turn on the scientists with a vengeance.

    There are plenty of scientists working on the con side, but they are not well received, I seriously doubt it is just because there work is heretical, it is because rational people have found better means to explain the current trends with better evidence. That is the way science works and I'm not sure I buy the conspiracy theories, or buy the idea that somehow evidence to the contrary was suppressed or is suppressed in some underhand way, indeed up until recently in the US scientist studies on the pro side were suppressed and people lost their jobs for questioning the govt.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2007
  12. Jul 6, 2007 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You might find this interesting SD, it's a recent debate on anthropogenic global warming hosted by NPR.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151

    There is a lot of discussion going on about the credibilty and reliabilty of climate modeling, here is one article from Science Magazine on it. Science ; VOL. 272 ; ISSUE: 5265 ; PBD: 24 May 1996

    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/abstracts/Uncertainties.html

    To me, it's not an issue of "if" there is climate change (that's the politically correct term now) of course there is, how much of it is natural and how much is caused by man, I don't agree that we know definitively what, where, and how much. Are we just talking about reducing emmisions or are we talking about interferring with nature as in the proposed "sunshield satellite"?

    The need for better information so we can make more accurate climate change predictions so we know where to focus is very important, IMHO. More emphasis is now being placed on local and regional impacts of climate change.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2007
  13. Jul 6, 2007 #12
    Thanks Evo interesting discussion.

    They were against the motion of no crisis before and less so after, makes sense. But a single debate to the laymen will not sway much people in the scientific community.

    I think the most convincing argument for me is if the consensus is wrong about global warming and we - at least in my country - have made all these changes to be less reliant on fossil fuels, more reliant on renewables, and more sustainable in the long term, we have lost nothing, we are playing it forward. We have become more efficient not lost economically - in fact in the UK our economy is very strong - and have in fact only gained from our actions and will continue to do so anyway because the cost of fossil fuels is only going to rise.

    Now if we do nothing and the consensus is proved correct, we have lost the chance to act to mitigate it, we have lost out in efficiency, and in the long term our economic viability to some extent. What would you chose, to be wrong and still gain from your error, or to be right and gain more? Or to be anti change and to be right and still gain nothing by doing so?

    That for me is the most convincing argument, we can only gain from becoming more efficient we can only lose from sacrificing that, regardless of the outcome of what is a very contentious issue.

    Is there a crisis no, will there be? I believe so atm, although not devoutly; either way our actions now are only beneficial if we act, and never beneficial if we do nothing. Therefore it's a simple choice for me.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2007
  14. Jul 6, 2007 #13
    The problem is no one's talking about global dimming. That's the reason we're not actually experiencing global warming, and it allows these pro-GW people to make up nonsense about it not existing.
     
  15. Jul 6, 2007 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I've always said I'm all for reducing emmisions and pollutants and helping to restore the environment, that's a given.

    What scares me are these crazy ideas that are starting to surface which are aimed at interferring with nature. We don't know what we're doing and since we have such a history of causing more problems when we try to control the environment, I'm worried that too much hype will cause people to make bad decisons. I've got to find that article on the satellite proposal. :bugeye:

    Edit: Found it.
    http://environment.newscientist.com...ld-could-be-quick-fix-for-global-warming.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2007
  16. Jul 6, 2007 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Just like the most recent previous poll on the issue, this one doesn't have enough or diverse enough options. It basically gives two options: 'global warming is real' and 'I'm a crackpot'. So someone who believes that global warming may be true or probably is true doesn't have any choices in the poll.
     
  17. Jul 7, 2007 #16
    Well I would suggest you add some more then :smile:, the poll isn't really ever important lets face it, it's a sound bite of a global issue from a tiny population, I didn't mean it to be taken seriously to be frank :smile:

    I Did a search in Earth Sciences where this was originally posted and found nothing remotely interesting on global warming in the last few months, lots of short uninteresting threads, perhaps that should have cued me onto the fact that the media has inundated everyone's consciousness with this so much that there is an overload? BTW the poll in Earth sciences was way better than this one, but then mine was light hearted.

    I don't put much stock in crazy ideas either I'm a pragmatic realist, I don't expect for example a country (as hard line capitalist as it is) to change over night, that's not realistic, I do expect it to change though and it is; I think as long as you ask yourself what can I do and then at least pay more than a nodding respect to your conscience, then that is enough. Doing nothing on any scale as I said is ultimately foolish.

    I love New Scientist, never scared to expound even the most crazy theories: slow news week methinks. :smile:
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2007
  18. Jul 7, 2007 #17

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    "Lost nothing?" You're absolutely certain the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration isn't nature's way of telling us we're overdoing the commercial fishing? Is a fishery collapse imminent? Dunno. What are the consequences of such a collapse? Sea level rise a result of overpumped aquifers? Used to irrigate the "green revolution?" That feeds 6 billion people? That isn't sustainable for more than another couple decades (depends on sources you choose)?

    You're positive that every effort has to go into fighting GW rather than working on lower impact commercial fisheries, developing "dry land" agriculture, improving food storage (reduces agricultural demand)? Absolutely positive? It just can't be any other way? If Al Gore says the atmospheric carbon "tail" wags the oceanic carbon "dog," all the physical and chemical principles established over the past two centuries have to be wrong?
     
  19. Jul 7, 2007 #18

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You really bring up a LOT of excellent issues. Unfortunately a lot of the things that should be done aren't as politically "attractive", therefore most likely won't get addressed as long as movies show cartoons of drowning polar bears instead of what might really be causing real problems that could be addressed. People don't want to hear the dull details of reality, they want sensationalism. :rolleyes:
     
  20. Jul 7, 2007 #19

    Mk

    User Avatar

    You're pointing to carbon desequestration (fish?) due to human needs and wants as a major player in the atmospheric CO2
     
  21. Jul 7, 2007 #20

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I'll assume a question mark at the end of the sentence and say, "Not quite --- more a reduction in sequestration rate." F'rinstance, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=2FE60E72-E7F2-99DF-33CA55A97B6E42B7&ref=rss ; couldn't find my link to the 10 gigaton/a rate for the Antarctic "transition zone," but will add it if it shows up again --- people who've been looking at sequestration rate and change in rate for the last few years down thataway.
     
  22. Jul 8, 2007 #21
    Aren't you making an assumption that all I want is governments to work on certain areas and ignore others, I'm pretty sure my government and the environment agency are not ignorantly choosing those issues to tackle with the most political impact, they are well informed by scientists I am sure on all of the issues, and would be looking at the best holistic approach to tackling Kyoto quotas as well as improving the environment generally, after all that is there job, if they have chosen to go with wind farms instead of x then I have faith there are reasons for this. What I'd like is increased efficiency and lower environment impact technologies, I'm not too particular about the best way of doing this. I can't speak for what other countries are doing though, but I'm happy with my government at least in terms of their environmental policies.

    I'm not sure what your getting at with the marine life thing or what it is you want scientists to do about it except take it into account, I've no doubt if animal sequestering of carbon is reduced it is caused via global warming, or rising sea temperatures, if CO2 is the cause of the extra warming then tackling that should reduce temperatures in the oceans, if not then as I said before, the increased efficiency is of benefit anyway; I doubt there's anything we can do directly to tackle the seas sequestering rates anyway.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2007
  23. Jul 8, 2007 #22

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    We'll try it again: you've bought the CO2 causes increased T, increases melting of icecaps, raises sea levels model, and are positive there is no other explanation for observations of increased levels of atmospheric CO2 and sea level --- this is my inference from the quoted paragraph. You are also absolutely certain that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due only to fossil fuel consumption; "I've no doubt if animal sequestering of carbon is reduced it is caused via global warming, or rising sea temperatures, if CO2 is the cause of the extra warming then tackling that should reduce temperatures in the oceans" is circular reasoning, and a mis-statement or misunderstanding of the question I asked.

    Let's rephrase that question: "Given that oceans contain 50-60 times the amount of carbon found in the atmosphere, that 'turnover' time for the oceans is estimated at 1000 years, that net atmospheric-oceanic exchange of CO2 is ~ 0, that estimates of the annual oceanic photosynthetic fixation of CO2 run from 100-300 billion tons/a, that commercial fisheries peaked in the nineties at 100 million tons/a with an equal 'bycatch' (2-3 times as much according to some sources), that fish stocks have been reduced to the point of closing some fishing grounds, and that fish in a marine environment produce ~ 10 times their own mass in fecal material/a, contributing to surface to deep water transport and long-term sequestration of carbon, are you absolutely certain fossil fuel consumption controls atmospheric CO2 concentrations?"
     
  24. Jul 8, 2007 #23
    Oh well in that case it's easy to answer, do I think that the only contributor to global warming and C02 is fossil fuels, no absolutely not that would make me an idiot. Do I think that it's a major contributor to rising C02 levels, yes.

    I'm not sure why you are obsessing about fisheries to be honest, or even what it is you are driving at, am I missing something here?

    Do you think over fishing will have more effect on increasing CO2 levels than fossil fuels or that it's a major contributor in the same way fossil fuels are?

    Anyway my only point is that, fossil fuel reduction can do nothing but benefit a country, what that has to do with fisheries I'm not sure and I think you have the wrong end of the stick; as I said I'm not suggesting there is only one thing we should be tackling in environment, it's a complicated problem, I didn't mean to suggest that there was a simple solution to the problem, I just highlighted the factors that actually have some sort of global agreement.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2007
  25. Jul 8, 2007 #24

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It depends on how the fossil fuel reduction is handled and what it is replaced by. You have to remember the greed factor.

    When CFC's were banned it was assumed a more environmentally friendly product would be used, no. Instead manufacturers went with the cheapest alternative they could find which appears to be even worse.

    Here is another example of how fossil fuel reduction is starting to cause even more problems, one the EU has just realized and not sure what to do.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18332282/

    This might be a good discussion to have. How do we control what is happening in these poor countries that now feel they are sitting on a gold mine, they just need to destroy the natural flora and replant with biofuel crops.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2007
  26. Jul 8, 2007 #25

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook