Debate time: Global Warming

[dt3]

I wasn't referring to the medieval period. I'm referring to the fact that the vast majority of our globe was once covered in ice, but something happened to change that. And it was well before we were on the planet.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Where did you hear this?

And is it relevant?

I mean if we weren't here when the world was supposedly covered in ice (and this is probably true) how do we know that the planet could sustain life if we were covered in ice again, that we could survive?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

And other things could have happened. Other things can, have, and could be changing climate. It's just that man made global warming is the most probable thing to suspect this time.

 

[dt3]

Where did you hear this?

And is it relevant?

I mean if we weren't here when the world was supposedly covered in ice (and this is probably true) how do we know that the planet could sustain life if we were covered in ice again, that we could survive?

Where did I hear about the many Ice Ages or Earth has gone through? It's a well-known, commonly accepted scientific fact.

Here's the quick read on it:
Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's the interesting part:

The earliest well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last 1 billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which permanent ice covered the entire globe and was ended by the effects of the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes. "The presence of ice on the continents and pack ice on the oceans would inhibit both silicate weathering and photosynthesis, which are the two major sinks for CO2 at present."

My point is not that we would survive an Ice Age, I have no idea about that. My point is that they have happened in the past, and the global temperatures have risen out of the Ice Ages without man being present. It has happened.

And other things could have happened. Other things can, have, and could be changing climate. It's just that man made global warming is the most probable thing to suspect this time.

How is man-made global warming the most probable at this time? We know it's happened before man, so why would we be the likely culprits now? It's completely illogical. MAYBE we're contributing to it, but I find it very arrogant to think we can massively effect the climate of this planet drastically in any direction.

 

[SgtSpike]

Where did I hear about the many Ice Ages or Earth has gone through? It's a well-known, commonly accepted scientific fact.

Here's the quick read on it:
Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's the interesting part:



My point is not that we would survive an Ice Age, I have no idea about that. My point is that they have happened in the past, and the global temperatures have risen out of the Ice Ages without man being present. It has happened.


How is man-made global warming the most probable at this time? We know it's happened before man, so why would we be the likely culprits now? It's completely illogical. MAYBE we're contributing to it, but I find it very arrogant to think we can massively effect the climate of this planet drastically in any direction.

I'm in 100% agreeance here.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

How is man-made global warming the most probable at this time? We know it's happened before man, so why would we be the likely culprits now? It's completely illogical. MAYBE we're contributing to it, but I find it very arrogant to think we can massively effect the climate of this planet drastically in any direction.

I think it's highly arrogant for us to think we could have no effect on the earth.

Before the Industrial Revolution, when people started burning fossil fuels on a large scale, the rate of carbon emissions roughly equaled the rate of carbon absorption. Currently, CO2 created by burning fossil fuels is twice what the Earth’s forests and oceans can absorb. Consider that the Earth has been sequestering carbon for hundreds of millions of years. Now, in a small amount of geological time, humans are pulling coal, oil, and natural gas out of the earth, burning it and emitting carbon back into the atmosphere.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Where did I hear about the many Ice Ages or Earth has gone through? It's a well-known, commonly accepted scientific fact.

Here's the quick read on it:
Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, sorry I was confused I thought you meant that there was a single time a long, long time ago when the earth was completely covered in ice or something. Not that the earth has had ice ages before. Which I know is true.

So are you refering to this warming trend as simply being a recovery from the last cooling trend (the little ice age)?

 

[dt3]

I think it's highly arrogant for us to think we could have no effect on the earth.

Before the Industrial Revolution, when people started burning fossil fuels on a large scale, the rate of carbon emissions roughly equaled the rate of carbon absorption. Currently, CO2 created by burning fossil fuels is twice what the Earth’s forests and oceans can absorb. Consider that the Earth has been sequestering carbon for hundreds of millions of years. Now, in a small amount of geological time, humans are pulling coal, oil, and natural gas out of the earth, burning it and emitting carbon back into the atmosphere.

I think if you're going to debate reasonably, you shouldn't directly plagiarize the words of another source. Your response word-for-word matches this site:
How to talk to a climate change skeptic, part 2 | Greenwala

Citing your sources is a good thing. Plagiarizing is bad.

 

[dt3]

So are you refering to this warming trend as simply being a recovery from the last cooling trend (the little ice age)?

I would say it's a very plausible theory.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I think if you're going to debate reasonably, you shouldn't directly plagiarize the words of another source. Your response word-for-word matches this site:
How to talk to a climate change skeptic, part 2 | Greenwala

Citing your sources is a good thing. Plagiarizing is bad.

I never said my words were my words. I'm trying to prove a point I strongly believe in, not look good.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

And several of my links have gone directly to that source, in case if you hadn't noticed.

 

[dt3]

I never said my words were my words. I'm trying to prove a point I strongly believe in, not look good.

Well, I don't find it very intriguing or worthwhile to discuss something with someone who doesn't have any original thoughts on the subject. You feel strongly about the subject, but can't speak on it in your own words? No offense, but I'm done here.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Well, I don't find it very intriguing or worthwhile to discuss something with someone who doesn't have any original thoughts on the subject. You feel strongly about the subject, but can't speak on it in your own words? No offense, but I'm done here.

I speak with my own words quite often. But I hate wasting my time writing something that has already been written perfectly. Some of the things I say come from other websites and some come from my brain. But the point is is that it's all my opinion.

I think your just being immature and refusing to talk about this, because the side your backing might just be wrong. And you refuse to accept this.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Look this debate is no contest between you and me. It's far to important for that. This debate is us choosing if we should or shouldn't take action on global warming. It doesn't matter how we reach the conclusion or who 'wins' and was right all along. All that matters is that the conclusion we reach is the right one.

If we were on a website like (link) Convince Me it would matter that I copied and pasted. But, since we are having a debate to change the conclusions we have come up with by ourselves, it doesn't matter. This debate is no contest. It is serious.

 

[SgtSpike]

I think it's highly arrogant for us to think we could have no effect on the earth.

Before the Industrial Revolution, when people started burning fossil fuels on a large scale, the rate of carbon emissions roughly equaled the rate of carbon absorption. Currently, CO2 created by burning fossil fuels is twice what the Earth’s forests and oceans can absorb. Consider that the Earth has been sequestering carbon for hundreds of millions of years. Now, in a small amount of geological time, humans are pulling coal, oil, and natural gas out of the earth, burning it and emitting carbon back into the atmosphere.

So what if we're dumping more CO2 into the air right now than we ever have been. YOU STILL HAVEN'T PROVEN ANYTHING. I keep asking for something that will prove that humans are connected to the supposed warming of the earth (which I still believe to just be an anomoly), but all you come up with is either saying that the earth is warming, or that humans are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but nothing that actually connects those two together.

Just because we're putting CO2 in the air, and CO2 can act like a "greenhouse gas", does NOT mean that it is warming the earth. How much CO2 is there in the atmoshpere compared to other greenhouse gases? How much CO2 have we put into the air compared to the trillions of pounds of other gases that already exist? My guess is that what we are contributing amounts to a tiny fraction of a percentage of all the gases that are potential greenhouse gases, and really doesn't matter in the long run.

EDIT: Besides, don't you believe in evolution too? I say we just let the earth "evolve" to fit any new circumstances.

 

[SgtSpike]

I think if you're going to debate reasonably, you shouldn't directly plagiarize the words of another source. Your response word-for-word matches this site:
How to talk to a climate change skeptic, part 2 | Greenwala

Citing your sources is a good thing. Plagiarizing is bad.

:24::24::24:

 

[Goat Whisperer]

So what if we're dumping more CO2 into the air right now than we ever have been. YOU STILL HAVEN'T PROVEN ANYTHING. I keep asking for something that will prove that humans are connected to the supposed warming of the earth (which I still believe to just be an anomoly), but all you come up with is either saying that the earth is warming, or that humans are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but nothing that actually connects those two together.

I thought you understood what the green house effect was? The simple explanation is that the suns rays come into the atmosphere. Some are absorbed by the earth, some bounce off the earth, and some are bounced back towards the earth because of the green house gases. The green house effect in and of it's self is good. We need it to maintain a good temperature balance otherwise we would be blistering hot during the day and freezing cold at night (like the moon). But we are changing the green house effect by adding more co2 which is blocking in more sun rays.

. How much CO2 is there in the atmoshpere compared to other greenhouse gases?

First off, green house gases only make-up .01% of the atmosphere. So it's a tiny percentage to begin with. The exact amounts of each gas is not known.But, what is known is that water vapour is the most abundant and co2 is the second most abundant.

How much CO2 have we put into the air compared to the trillions of pounds of other gases that already exist?My guess is that what we are contributing amounts to a tiny fraction of a percentage of all the gases that are potential greenhouse gases, and really doesn't matter in the long run.

Your forgetting that things like trees take Co2 back out of the atmosphere. It doesn't usually all add up. Its taken fossil fuels (which are made out of carbon originally) about 300 million years (about .2 GT year) of the carbon building up underground to create those fossil fuels. Then all of it being put back up in the air in less then 200. Pretty significant if you ask me. Yes, water makes up more then the green house effect but, since we are adding such a large amount of carbon in such a short period of time; carbon is the greenhouse gas we worry about.

Humans emit 7 Gt (giga-tons), Oceans emit 90 Gt, trees emit 120 Gt, and volcanoes only emit .15. Seems like we must not have any effect, but guess what was 'forgotten'? Oh yeah, what all those things actually take-in!

Oceans might emit 90 GT but they also take in 92 GT, so they actually take in 2 GT of carbon a year. Trees emit 120 GT but take-in 121 GT, so they actually take-in 1 GT a year. And volcanoes only release about .15 a year. So humans are the main source of carbon emissions compared to nature. Where as the net effect of humans is still 7 Giga-tons a year. Now as I said the numbers won't add up perfectly as they are rounded. Humans emmit 7 GT, 2 are taken in by the ocean, 2 go somewhere else (we don't know where they are going), and 3 GT go into the atmosphere a year. So your 'guess' is not correct, sorry.

Besides, don't you believe in evolution too? I say we just let the earth "evolve" to fit any new circumstances.

Yes, I do believe in evolution. BUT

What if this 'evolution' results in the collapse of humanity?

Evolution is change, and change isn't always good. From climate models, we've seen that we won't do well if the earth heats up. If it's something were probably causing, something we could stop, and something that will harm us; we should stop it. Correct?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

BTW Dt3 all of that was just directly typed and put in from my noggin. Except the numbers which I copied and pasted from an early post of mine.

 

[SgtSpike]

I thought you understood what the green house effect was? The simple explanation is that the suns rays come into the atmosphere. Some are absorbed by the earth, some bounce off the earth, and some are bounced back towards the earth because of the green house gases. The green house effect in and of it's self is good. We need it to maintain a good temperature balance otherwise we would be blistering hot during the day and freezing cold at night (like the moon). But we are changing the green house effect by adding more co2 which is blocking in more sun rays.

First off, green house gases only make-up .01% of the atmosphere. So it's a tiny percentage to begin with. The exact amounts of each gas is not known.But, what is known is that water vapour is the most abundant and co2 is the second most abundant.

Your forgetting that things like trees take Co2 back out of the atmosphere. It doesn't usually all add up. Its taken fossil fuels (which are made out of carbon originally) about 300 million years (about .2 GT year) of the carbon building up underground to create those fossil fuels. Then all of it being put back up in the air in less then 200. Pretty significant if you ask me. Yes, water makes up more then the green house effect but, since we are adding such a large amount of carbon in such a short period of time; carbon is the greenhouse gas we worry about.

Humans emit 7 Gt (giga-tons), Oceans emit 90 Gt, trees emit 120 Gt, and volcanoes only emit .15. Seems like we must not have any effect, but guess what was 'forgotten'? Oh yeah, what all those things actually take-in!

Oceans might emit 90 GT but they also take in 92 GT, so they actually take in 2 GT of carbon a year. Trees emit 120 GT but take-in 121 GT, so they actually take-in 1 GT a year. And volcanoes only release about .15 a year. So humans are the main source of carbon emissions compared to nature. Where as the net effect of humans is still 7 Giga-tons a year. Now as I said the numbers won't add up perfectly as they are rounded. Humans emmit 7 GT, 2 are taken in by the ocean, 2 go somewhere else (we don't know where they are going), and 3 GT go into the atmosphere a year. So your 'guess' is not correct, sorry.

Yes, I do believe in evolution. BUT

What if this 'evolution' results in the collapse of humanity?

Evolution is change, and change isn't always good. From climate models, we've seen that we won't do well if the earth heats up. If it's something were probably causing, something we could stop, and something that will harm us; we should stop it. Correct?

I understand what the greenhouse effect is and all that. Is there at least an estimate of the amount of water vapour and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? What if CO2 is only .001% of the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - then it doesn't really matter if we double or triple the amount of CO2 in the air, and that's exactly my point.

Gigatons sound like a large amount of CO2, but let's find out how much the entire atmosphere "weighs". The atmosphere at sea level is 14 PSI (pounds per square inch). If we take that number, and multiply it by the number of square inches on the earth, divide by 2,000, then we should have a good idea of the total number of tons of atmosphere there are. I'm merely curious about this number, not trying to prove a point, but just thought I'd type it out for others to see.

The earth is approximately 7,920 miles in diameter. To get the surface area in square inches, we must first convert miles to inches:

7,920 x 5280 x 12 = 501,811,200

Thus, the earths diameter is 500 million inches. We must divide by two to get the radius for computing the surface area. 250,905,600 inches for the radius.

The equation for the surface area of a sphere is 4 x pi x r^2, or "four pi r squared". Thus, we compute the total (estimated) number of square inches on the earth.

4 * 3.14 * 250,905,600 ^ 2 = 790,697,468,598,681,600 square inches

Now, we must convert to pounds per square inch.

790,697,468,598,681,600 square inches * 14 lbs/sq in = 11,069,764,560,381,542,400 lbs

Finally, we'll convert back to tons, and then gigatons.

11,069,764,560,381,542,400 lbs / 2,000 lbs/ton = 5,534,882,280,190,771.2 tons
5,534,882,280,190,771.2 tons / 1,000,000,000 tons/gigaton = 5,534,882.28

So, there's approximately 5.5 million gigatons of atmosphere out there... and we added another 7 of CO2? That's a whole... 0.0001%. Whoops.

Maybe, just MAYBE, you can see why I'm a bit skeptical of global warming being caused by humans.

Oh BTW, do you have a source for where you said that greenhouse gases only make up 0.01% of the atmosphere?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

They have already done that math--better and more accurate then you have (Not to say that that wasn't a good job or anything). Finding that .01% of the atmosphere is green house gases (which is all we should care about when talking about the green house effect. 01%)and a large percentage of it is water vapour and a small but, still second most abundant green house gas carbon. But, just because it is a small amount doesn't mean it plays a small role. In fact when talking about such small percentages, like less then 36% of .01% (36% is the largest co2 concentration possible, I think) small changes cause for larger effects. Because the concentration is already so small in the atmosphere that adding more can change a lot of stuff, and not in good ways.

As most people are aware, Earth's climate would be considerably colder without the naturally occurring greenhouse effect - about 0 degrees Fahrenheit on average instead of the 58 to 60 degree average. The term greenhouse effect is a bit of a misnomer in that a greenhouse blocks heated air whereas the "greenhouse" gasses we discuss here are opaque to infrared radiation from the sun as it attempts to travel back into space off the Earth's surface. Not quite the same thing as what actually happens in a greenhouse.
Nonetheless, the term has stuck, so we have greenhouse gasses creating the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is indeed the dominate atmospheric greenhouse gas for Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Incidentally, this isn't a secret that scientists are trying to keep from the public in order to promote their scare tactics and get grant money. As ludicrous as that statement sounds, I have heard such assertions in "debates" put forth in other forums as an argument denying climate change or CO2 buildup as a real concern.
In any case, even though water vapor is the predominate gas for the naturally occurring greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide plays a more important role in varying the strength of global warming.
The reason for this is due to the almost instantaneous adjustments of water vapor to changing conditions, cycling through the climate system normally in as little as a week. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, sticks around in the atmosphere for decades. Thus, an increased input of CO2 into the atmosphere does not adjust to current conditions - it doesn't rain liquid CO2. It builds up and thus drives the degree of global warming much more than water vapor.
To sum up, water vapor is indeed the dominate greenhouse gas involved in the naturally occurring greenhouse gas. Due to its quick adjustment to environmental changes in the atmosphere, it helps keep the energy balance of the climate system relatively stable. Carbon dioxide, while much less prevalent than water vapor, lingers in the atmosphere much, much longer (decades) and thus will steadily increase in atmospheric volume, altering the naturally occurring energy balance of the climate system. This is why CO2 has a greater role in determining the strength of the greenhouse effect

Nasa. I got all my numbers from Nasa on that post.