Is the Global Warming Hoax Really Unstoppable Every 1500 Years?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BarackZero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Global Global warming
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the claims made in S. Fred Singer's book, "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years," particularly regarding global warming and its historical patterns. Participants explore various viewpoints on climate change, the credibility of sources, and the implications of Singer's arguments.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Singer's book effectively debunks many global warming myths, citing his authority in climate physics.
  • Others challenge the credibility of Singer, referencing his past associations with the tobacco industry and questioning his motivations.
  • Several claims are made regarding the IPCC report, including assertions that it was based on unpeer-reviewed research and that the Hockey Stick graph has been discredited.
  • Participants mention the existence of natural cycles in global temperatures, particularly a 1500-year cycle linked to solar activity.
  • Some argue that slight increases in temperatures could have beneficial effects on agriculture and that doomsday predictions are exaggerated.
  • Questions are raised about the evidence for global warming, including ice core data and the conditions on Venus as a counterpoint to Singer's claims.
  • There are calls for references to support the claims made in Singer's book, highlighting a desire for substantiation of the arguments presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the validity of Singer's arguments and the broader implications of climate change remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some claims made in the discussion rely on specific interpretations of scientific data and historical context, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives on climate science, with varying degrees of skepticism and acceptance of mainstream climate research.

  • #31
SixNein said:
Do you think the ecosystem is infinite? An equilibrium exists and we are crossing it.

People like to argue the sun as a defense. So I start out with venus to nip that entire conversation in the bud.
I fail to see how the Sunspot cycle shouldn't be considered, and brought up in discussion about Global warming. People can "argue the sun" as a defense because it is totally relevant.

And you think you can nip the Sunspot argument in the butt by bringing up something that isn't the Sun, Earth, or Earth's climate? That's strange.

And no, I don't think the ecosystem is "infinite". But, there isn't just one "equilibrium". There is a range in which equilibrium exists, as the planet will naturally correct for changes in variables. We may be moving out of this range, but that doesn't mean we are "destroying" the ecosystem all together.

Please, stop with the doomsday theories.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
SixNein said:
People like to argue the sun as a defense. So I start out with venus to nip that entire conversation in the bud.

That doesn't nip the argument in the bud. Rather it augments the hilarity of directly comparing the Earth to Venus.
 
  • #33
Brilliant! said:
It was not a typo. He's done it at least 4 times in this one thread, which means he thinks that's the way "CO2" is written. I wasn't trying to be a jerk or validate myself. I was simply attempting to correct some false knowledge.

Have I not? I've taken the route of common sense. I could expand upon what I've said, but there is no need to. And that isn't for lack of evidence or knowledge, but because it simply isn't necessary. I've given facts about Sunspot variance and temperature of variance. There is causality here. There are more reasons than just Sunspots, but Sunspots can not be neglected as they are one of the major causes for temperature increases in our entire solar system. It is also a fact that the level of Sunspots is cyclical (the smallest cycle being 11 years). We also don't have the means to undo what we've done. We only have the means to improve our technology so that we may do it less and less and until we don't do it anymore.

Also, should I provide evidence that car companies see a future in low-emissions vehicles? That would be redundant, equivalent to citing Copernicus everytime I talked about planetary orbit, or Newton everytime I spoke of gravity.

The science is inherent in the topics we are discussing. And I'm here, wondering if you see the irony in reprimanding me for correcting someone's "typo", to follow it up by critiquing the manner in which I present information.

I may have a few comma splices, fused sentences, fragments, shifts, and some incorrect spelling as well. If you want to start using precise language, "everytime" should be written as "every time".

So let us continue about sunspots and venus. =)
 
  • #34
SixNein said:
I may have a few comma splices, fused sentences, fragments, shifts, and some incorrect spelling as well. If you want to start using precise language, "everytime" should be written as "every time".

So let us continue about sunspots and venus. =)

Please post your data about the average global temperature on the planet Venus for the past 10,000 years.
 
  • #35
SixNein said:
I may have a few comma splices, fused sentences, fragments, shifts, and some incorrect spelling as well. If you want to start using precise language, "everytime" should be written as "every time".

So let us continue about sunspots and venus. =)
Hmmm... this is a fun game you're playing. I'd like to drop the matter of typos, as you'll easily be able to skirt the real issue there by claiming ignorance.

And as for Sunspots and Venus, I think I've come to a realization that applies to our conversation:

You do know that CO2 doesn't make a planet hotter, correct?
 
  • #36
Brilliant! said:
I fail to see how the Sunspot cycle shouldn't be considered, and brought up in discussion about Global warming. People can "argue the sun" as a defense because it is totally relevant.

And you think you can nip the Sunspot argument in the butt by bringing up something that isn't the Sun, Earth, or Earth's climate? That's strange.

And no, I don't think the ecosystem is "infinite". But, there isn't just one "equilibrium". There is a range in which equilibrium exists, as the planet will naturally correct for changes in variables. We may be moving out of this range, but that doesn't mean we are "destroying" the ecosystem all together.

Please, stop with the doomsday theories.

All I have to do is link Venus and C02. Then I can show this:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
 
  • #37
I've just come to the understanding that you don't understand what Global Warming is. Unfortunately, I have to go to work and can't explain it. I'll be back later tonight, hopefully.
 
  • #38
seycyrus said:
Please post your data about the average global temperature on the planet Venus for the past 10,000 years.

We will eventually be able to obtain ice core data from there; however, we do not currently have that. We do have ICE core data from Earth that shows a temp-c02 relation. So it's a moot point anyway.
 
  • #39
Brilliant! said:
I've just come to the understanding that you don't understand what Global Warming is. Unfortunately, I have to go to work and can't explain it. I'll be back later tonight, hopefully.

Your argument is C02 is being completely absorbed by the environment. The data does not reflect that argument.
 
  • #40
That's quite an assumption to make. Your seeing what you want to see so that you may have ground to stand on. Read my posts again, and you will see that I made no such argument.

Off to work, I'll definitely check back.
 
  • #41
Brilliant! said:
That's quite an assumption to make. Your seeing what you want to see so that you may have ground to stand on. Read my posts again, and you will see that I made no such argument.

Off to work, I'll definitely check back.


And you're right, CO2, a greenhouse gas, is the reason for the temperature of Venus. But looking at only one part of a whole, and drawing incredible conclusions is scientific heresy. There is no life on Venus. No water, no trees, no people. This is an incredibly huge difference, don't you think? Volcanoes spew incredible amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere. Humans exhale incredible amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The difference between the Earth and Venus is that we have an active ecological system, which involves the recycling of CO2 into oxygen by our green friends in kingdom Plantae. Even the ocean gets involved, by being the largest carbon sink on the planet.

I may have been up all night, but it seems like you use the ecosystem to refute to me.
 
  • #42
SixNein said:
We will eventually be able to obtain ice core data from there; however, we do not currently have that.

Waitasec... you brought up Venus when you don't even have a comparative data set? Do you think that Earth = Venus?

SixNein said:
We do have ICE core data from Earth that shows a temp-c02 relation. So it's a moot point anyway.

I haven't seen any such correlation.
 
  • #43
seycyrus said:
Waitasec... you brought up Venus when you don't even have a comparative data set? Do you think that Earth = Venus?
I haven't seen any such correlation.

No, I'm simply providing an observation of the effects that C02 can have on a planet. If Venus can be hotter then Mercury with 75% less irradiation, it is fairly safe to argue that C02 is an important factor.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

Now there are other factors that occur that can effect temperature. Orbits, sunspots, volcano (Yellowstone eruption would suck), the list is endless. There is also other causes of the greenhouse effect such as methane, water vapor (also acts as a feedback), and Nitrous oxide.
 
  • #44
As far as I can tell we can distill the entire argument to this:

1. The Earth's climate is not and has not always been the same.
2. Even in our species own history the climate on this planet has changed dramatically, we "came of age" during an ice age.
3. We haven't been around long enough to directly observe enough, and certainly not scientific long enough, to be able to tell what normal ebbs and flow in the climate are over long period of time.
4. Civilization started producing pollutants in large quantities with the last 100 years or so.
5. There is evidence that the planet's temperature is slightly increasing over time.

There are things to think about here and evidence to gather but from those 5 points it doesn't by any means directly follow that human civilization is the entire cause of climate change. Correlation isn't causation as we know. And if we look at other factors such as the sun cycle, we can postulate that perhaps what we see is a cumulative result of many things. There is no dichotomy between global warming being of human doing or natural, it is almost certainly both.

The Venus argument is horribly misleading and irrelevant, you can't just pull out a single gas and say that Venus is hot because of CO2, there is an entirely planetwide system you must consider and it should be entirely obvious that the Earth does not behave like Venus.
 
  • #45
Brilliant! said:
Have I not? I've taken the route of common sense.
"Common sense" - the most underrated fallacy.


Brilliant! said:
I could expand upon what I've said, but there is no need to. And that isn't for lack of evidence or knowledge, but because it simply isn't necessary. I've given facts about Sunspot variance and temperature of variance. There is causality here. There are more reasons than just Sunspots, but Sunspots can not be neglected as they are one of the major causes for temperature increases in our entire solar system. It is also a fact that the level of Sunspots is cyclical (the smallest cycle being 11 years). We also don't have the means to undo what we've done. We only have the means to improve our technology so that we may do it less and less and until we don't do it anymore.

Not arguing the sunspot facts, simply that you seem to feel the facts lead to incontrivertible conclusions, namely from "This current cycle will end" to "Temperatures will decrease." and that "There is absolutely no way to refute this bit of science."




Brilliant! said:
Also, should I provide evidence that car companies see a future in low-emissions vehicles? That would be redundant, equivalent to citing Copernicus everytime I talked about planetary orbit, or Newton everytime I spoke of gravity.
No, simply for your conclusion that "[global warming] just isn't going to happen". And your attempt to equate your personal conjecture to laws of nature is silly.


Brilliant! said:
The science is inherent in the topics we are discussing.
The rate at which low emission vehicles <i>of the future</i> will have a concrete affect global warming. This claim is 99% conjecture, 1% science.

etc. etc.

Don't misunderstand: I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm simply saying you're shooting yourself in the foot by way overstating your case.
 
  • #46
lubuntu said:
As far as I can tell we can distill the entire argument to this:

1. The Earth's climate is not and has not always been the same.
2. Even in our species own history the climate on this planet has changed dramatically, we "came of age" during an ice age.
3. We haven't been around long enough to directly observe enough, and certainly not scientific long enough, to be able to tell what normal ebbs and flow in the climate are over long period of time.
4. Civilization started producing pollutants in large quantities with the last 100 years or so.
5. There is evidence that the planet's temperature is slightly increasing over time.

There are things to think about here and evidence to gather but from those 5 points it doesn't by any means directly follow that human civilization is the entire cause of climate change. Correlation isn't causation as we know. And if we look at other factors such as the sun cycle, we can postulate that perhaps what we see is a cumulative result of many things. There is no dichotomy between global warming being of human doing or natural, it is almost certainly both.

The Venus argument is horribly misleading and irrelevant, you can't just pull out a single gas and say that Venus is hot because of CO2, there is an entirely planetwide system you must consider and it should be entirely obvious that the Earth does not behave like Venus.
The greenhouse effect is the cause of the high temp of venus. The greenhouse effect is also what keeps our surface temperature warm here on earth. Without it we would freeze at night.

The ICE core data obtained from multiple sources show temperature levels and greenhouse gas effects for hundreds of thousands of years. They have also been backed up with fossil evidence.

In any regard if you want to research it yourself, then I suggest you start here:

http://realclimate.org/

Anyway I'm passing out...
 
  • #47
lubuntu said:
As far as I can tell we can distill the entire argument to this:

1. The Earth's climate is not and has not always been the same.
2. Even in our species own history the climate on this planet has changed dramatically, we "came of age" during an ice age.
3. We haven't been around long enough to directly observe enough, and certainly not scientific long enough, to be able to tell what normal ebbs and flow in the climate are over long period of time.
4. Civilization started producing pollutants in large quantities with the last 100 years or so.
5. There is evidence that the planet's temperature is slightly increasing over time.

There are things to think about here and evidence to gather but from those 5 points it doesn't by any means directly follow that human civilization is the entire cause of climate change.

Yes. This is the we-can't-be-sure-so-let's-wait-and-see philosophy in a nutshell.

Now flash forward 100 years; one of two outcomes await. We were right or we were wrong.

If the global warming was a blip then fine. But what if it wasn't?

"Oops. I guess we should have done something about it before it was too late."

The kicker is that if we DO act now, we cover BOTH bases. We have both outcomes covered. If we do NOT act now, we leave our fate to the above dice roll, which may or may not fall in our favour.
 
  • #48
Oh, Dave believe me I entire agree that we should do something now. As I stated in a previous thread I take more issue with the way that politicians and activist seem to think this can be solved. This is the sort of problem that can have a purely scientific and engineering solution. If we are just smarter we can not only stop doing anything that would make our climate worse, but also harness much larger sources of energy, become a proper Type I civilization, and perhaps even make the climate here on Earth better.
 
  • #49
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. This is the we-can't-be-sure-so-let's-wait-and-see philosophy in a nutshell.

Now flash forward 100 years; one of two outcomes await. We were right or we were wrong.

If the global warming was a blip then fine. But what if it wasn't?

"Oops. I guess we should have done something about it before it was too late."

The kicker is that if we DO act now, we cover BOTH bases. We have both outcomes covered. If we do NOT act now, we leave our fate to the above dice roll, which may or may not fall in our favour.

Why am I not asleep?

I worry more about the oceans then I do the effects on climate. Acidic oceans will kill us long before global warming ever has the chance. It should be the main argument for reducing C02 because it's so much easier to explain. You can do lab experiments that people can see and better understand. When you're talking about climate change, you're speaking about multiple models tied together with multiple different sources of data.
 
  • #50
Worth repeating.
Evo (in the other GW thread) said:
This forum is only for discussion of the politics and current news about issues, not for scientific discussion. Thread locked.
 
  • #51
DaveC426913 said:
Not arguing the sunspot facts, simply that you seem to feel the facts lead to incontrovertible conclusions, namely from "This current cycle will end" to "Temperatures will decrease." and that "There is absolutely no way to refute this bit of science."
I don't understand your stance at all. We have increased solar activity. Irradiation of the Earth increases. Temperatures go up. Irrefutable. We also have greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. They trap some heat, and let some heat through. This is going on constantly. When solar activity decreases the irradiation of the Earth will lessen, and the temperature of the Earth will decrease because the process of trapping/releasing heat continues on, and the heat exposure of the Earth has gone down. This isn't just logically sound, this is proven science. The only way for this to be false would be if the atmosphere acted like a steel enclosure instead of a thin blanket.

DaveC426913 said:
No, simply for your conclusion that "[global warming] just isn't going to happen". And your attempt to equate your personal conjecture to laws of nature is silly.
Where did you get that from? Global warming is happening, because the globe is warming. I never said it "isn't going to happen". I'm saying that the globe would be warming regardless of our having polluted the atmosphere as a result of external variables, like Sunspots. Sunspots create higher temperatures: fact. The Earth receives the radiation necessary for life from the Sun: fact. The Sun emits more radiation, causing higher temperatures for the entire Solar System, the Earth included: fact.

Are we helping to increase the effect of the Sunspots? Certainly. Will our actions be the end of mankind? Absolutely not. Looking back at the history of the Sun as we know it, it's very, extremely, incredibly likely that this Sunspot cycle will end. I've come to that conclusion based on the same type of research that goes into proving Global Warming. And if it does end, the amount of radiation emitted by the Sun will decrease. When the amount of radiation emitted by Sun decreases, the Earth's temperature will drop. Think about it in the sense of something moving from an area of high concentration to an area of lower concentration. If X (Solar radiation) - Y (Amount of radiation blocked by the atmosphere) = Z (Temperature inside Earth's Atmosphere), then Z decreases as X decreases.

DaveC426913 said:
The rate at which low emission vehicles <i>of the future</i> will have a concrete affect global warming. This claim is 99% conjecture, 1% science.
I hardly have any idea what point you are trying to illustrate here. The concern of environmentalists is that we begin to lower our emissions to avoid danger. Every low-emissions car that replaces a higher-emissions car is a step in this direction. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As more enters the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect strengthens, no matter how small the increase of CO2 levels is. For simplicity's sake, let's use small, round numbers:

A Ford F150 releases 500 units of CO2 into the air for every hour it is driven. A Honda Civic Hybrid releases 350 units. If you get rid of the Ford, and replace it with the Honda, you are emitting 150 units less CO2 every hour. We have slowed the growth of the greenhouse effect by 150 units/hour. Regardless of how many other cars there are that haven't changed, we can maintain this calculation as a constant. That's called an immediate effect.

Hah. Overstating.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Brilliant! said:
I never said it "isn't going to happen".
Direct quote: "...even if we have the power to kill the Earth through global warming, it just isn't going to happen..."

You need to double check https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2113906&postcount=21".

You also need to bone up on the generally accepted definition of "irrefutable facts" versus deduction.

Yes, there are sunspots; I am not refuting this. But your argument as a whole seems to claim (without the slightest self-doubt or humility) that sunspots and other natural phenom explain the entire warming trend. This you cannot know, and you sure can't claim is as fact. Only the future will tell this.

Further, there seems to be no doubt in your mind that humans will not create a runaway process. It is fine for your to think this, but it is by no means whatever any kind of sure thing.


Seriously, reread post 21, particularly the final paragraph, and look at how boldly you state opinion as if it were irrefutable fact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Brilliant! said:
We have increased solar activity. Irradiation of the Earth increases. Temperatures go up. Irrefutable.

And to use the same logic and your own words...We also have greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. They trap some heat, and let some heat through. Greenhouse gas concentration increases. Temperatures go up. Irrefutable.

Both arguments fail because neither is a complete, rigorous scientific argument and both arguments ought to be made in threads in the Earth forum, if they wish to resemble a scientific argument. NOT HERE.
 
  • #54
Thread locked. Moderation pending.