News The Global Warming Hoax

  • Thread starter BarackZero
  • Start date
12
0
Fine sunspots, then please explain why Venus is hotter then Mercury. If it's not the C02 then what?
It's CO2, not C02. I hate to be nitpicky, but the things are entirely different. C02 is equivalent to C2, which is Dicarbon. CO2 is Carbon Dioxide.

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.

But this is all beside the point. Bringing up Venus to argue global warming is shameful. It's only effective because it preys on people's fears.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,254
1,859
It's CO2, not C02. I hate to be nitpicky, but the things are entirely different. C02 is equivalent to C2, which is Dicarbon. CO2 is Carbon Dioxide.
You're using a typo by your opponent to make it look like he is ignorant and that you know what you're talking about. This is poor netiquette. Proper netiquette is to ignore typos and other transcription errors unless they actually obfuscate the message.

Our CO2 emissions do not effect the Sun's activity. So, the Sunspot cycle will end, and temperatures will decrease to somewhat normal levels. However, the future of automobiles is in low-emissions. Not because it's best for "Mother Nature", but because it is best for commerce. Oil is an exhaustible resource, we all know this. And for car companies, the money is in the electric/clean burning fuels market. Toyota has the Prius, Chevy has the Volt, countless other companies have hybrid-this and hybrid-that. The point I am trying to make here is that even if we have the power to kill the Earth through global warming, it just isn't going to happen. We're moving away from fossil fuels as an economic necessity. It just so happens that it's also ecologically sound. Also, it's important to understand that we can't undo what we've already done. And at present time, we haven't done enough to cause a doomsday scenario. Maybe someday, if we were to continue our current level of CO2 emissions, we would finally do ourselves in, but it's not going to happen during this Sunspot cycle.
This is not science; this is an argument; an opinion. Half the world has opinions on this matter and they've gone to the trouble to back theirs up with hard science. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you haven't really added anything here.
 

seycyrus

There are often threads by new members which turn out to be spam.
Yeah!! In these here parts, only OLD members are allowed to put out spam! *snort*
 
12
0
You're using a typo by your opponent to make it look like he is ignorant and that you know what you're talking about. This is poor netiquette. Proper netiquette is to ignore typos and other transcription errors unless they actually obfuscate the message.
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.

This is not science; this is an argument; an opinion. Half the world has opinions on this matter and they've gone to the trouble to back theirs up with hard science. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you haven't really added anything here.
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.
 

SixNein

Gold Member
38
16
It's CO2, not C02. I hate to be nitpicky, but the things are entirely different. C02 is equivalent to C2, which is Dicarbon. CO2 is Carbon Dioxide.

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.

But this is all beside the point. Bringing up Venus to argue global warming is shameful. It's only effective because it preys on people's fears.
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.
 
12
0
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.
 

seycyrus

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.
 

SixNein

Gold Member
38
16
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. =)
 

seycyrus

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.
 
12
0
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?
 

SixNein

Gold Member
38
16
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
 
12
0
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.
 

SixNein

Gold Member
38
16
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.
 

SixNein

Gold Member
38
16
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.
 
12
0
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.
 

SixNein

Gold Member
38
16
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.
 

seycyrus

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?

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.
 

SixNein

Gold Member
38
16
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.
 
458
1
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.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,254
1,859
Have I not? I've taken the route of common sense.
"Common sense" - the most underrated fallacy.


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."




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.


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.
 

SixNein

Gold Member
38
16
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....
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,254
1,859
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.
 
458
1
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.
 

SixNein

Gold Member
38
16
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.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
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.
 

Related Threads for: The Global Warming Hoax

Replies
1
Views
297
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
290
Views
36K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
10
Views
9K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Posted
6 7 8
Replies
180
Views
13K
  • Poll
  • Posted
Replies
18
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top