Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 25, 2010 16:11:38 GMT -4
More evidence that it's politics that is driving global warming hysteria, not science: Later in the report the good Dr. admits that the claim had no real basis in science. So this is a clear example of scientists making stuff up strictly to influence politicians.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 25, 2010 18:22:00 GMT -4
Total mass of Carbon Dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere: about 3,000 gigatons. Human CO2 release from the burning of fossil fuels, per year: about 27 gigatons. Natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands: about 220 gigatons. Nearly an order of magnitude more. Roughly 95% of the CO2 released into our air each year is the result of natural processes, not human activity. So yes, we're releasing a lot of carbon into the air, but it's a tiny fraction of what is already being released into the air all around us by processes we have no real control over. Maybe that 5% has a huge effect?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 25, 2010 19:09:19 GMT -4
Roughly 95% of the CO2 released into our air each year is the result of natural processes, not human activity. So yes, we're releasing a lot of carbon into the air, but it's a tiny fraction of what is already being released into the air all around us by processes we have no real control over. That's sort of like saying if 95% of cancer cases are from natural causes, and 5% are from smoking, there is no reason for people to stop smoking.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 25, 2010 19:16:45 GMT -4
Maybe that 5% has a huge effect? Good point. If the Earth just barely maintains a safe average temperature with all of that naturally occurring CO2, and the 5% that comes from human pollution tips the balance, then it's our fault. We can't do much, if anything, about the naturally occurring CO2 emissions, but we can do something about our emissions.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 25, 2010 19:33:31 GMT -4
So, do we have any actual scientific evidence that the 5% really is having a huge effect, or that the Earth really does "just barely" maintain a safe average temperature?
The answer is "none I have seen as of yet". We've got some evidence that we may be currently in a warming trend, and that's it. Nothing shows that human activity has anything to do with current temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Jan 25, 2010 21:29:24 GMT -4
I wonder what kind of transfer function can be applied to earth's atmosphere, though, if the whole planet makes a significative shift in temperature just because a 5% variation in an input value, then I think that none of us would be here. I believe that there has been worse things than our input of CO2 into the atmosphere and yet we are here. Obviously, we do need to focus in the air quality, forests, water, etc.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 25, 2010 23:13:25 GMT -4
Obviously, we do need to focus in the air quality, forests, water, etc. This has always been my beef. I think that there is so much concern and politicalisation on AGW that other (and imo worse) forms of polution have been ignored. Making sure that everyone has clean water and clean air, dealing with over fishing, and stopping deforestation are way more important in my book.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 25, 2010 23:30:49 GMT -4
By the way, I see John Costella is applying his talents to uncover the conspiracy behind Climategate: Climategate AnalysisThis sort of ruins global warming skepticism for me. These people have no idea who they are dealing with.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 26, 2010 12:49:46 GMT -4
By the way, I see John Costella is applying his talents to uncover the conspiracy behind Climategate: Climategate AnalysisThis sort of ruins global warming skepticism for me. These people have no idea who they are dealing with. If the man's arguments are sound what does it matter who he is?
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jan 26, 2010 14:32:27 GMT -4
His analysis was an interesting (and long) read but really didn't interject anything new to this issue as far as I'm concerned. The politicization of this issue was always there, as is the pressure on researchers to go along with the current consensus. We see that peer pressure on practically everything and I think Costella does a good job explaining the peer-review hurdle scientists have to face. I think 'Climategate' and other recent AGW black-eyes like the Himalayan "oops" can have a positive effect if it results in a reexamination of how data is gathered and analyzed and reminds everyone that the scientific method doesn't sit on it's laurels- for anything. That means AGW isn't, nor should be, "case closed" nor those that question current data analysis should be blackballed. It also doesn't mean that AGW is dead in the water as some deniers would tell you. What we should get out of this is that science isn't about validating a pet theory and is a "process" that never rests. One of the problems I have with both sides is that many are entrenched in a narrow POV and concentrate on who said what instead of an impartial scientific approach. IMO it's quite possible man-made emissions are having a significant effect but I haven't seen convincing evidence presented that rules out a cyclical component and, like PhantomWolf mentions, also allow the possibility that other man-made pollutants besides CO2 could be a factor along with things like deforestation. I think these factors, whether they ultimately have merit or not, haven't been adequately explored and blind allegiance to any pet theory is not only premature, it runs counter to actual scientific methodology.
|
|