creamcheese wrote:From your posts here I take it you don't believe that humans have had a noticeable effect on the climate.
I'm here to ask you, so what?

I wouldn't quite say that we've had no effect; Though our actions of strip mining, deforestation, not handling pollutant by products well enough, the negligence of supporting solutions of hemp paper/plastics/medicine/food, etc. All do more harm then good in terms of survivability. This is our spaceship for this age in time, and it never does us any good to mistreat it.
So, while I believe that human contributions to just one trace gas as the sole of our problems is blatantly false; I don't take the naive position of our actions on the environments of the world and their corresponding effects on the climate.

creamcheese wrote:It is a fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising. You can't dispute that, you can even measure them yourself.

Indeed.

creamcheese wrote:It is also a fact that global average temperatures have risen dramatically recently. This is also an undisputed fact.

Not quite, and I'd like to know what your definition of "risen dramatically" and "recently" are. The climate, according to ice cores, has a heartbeat of about 100K years. Would it be wise to compare the temperatures of the next three days, so you can plot out the next century? I think not.

creamcheese wrote:CO2 is a greenhouse gas, also a fact. You can do the experiment your self if you want. Humans spew out CO2 into the atmosphere, also a fact.

Water vapor is a far bigger greenhouse gas, and just how much CO2 do you think we add to the atmosphere in comparison to natural sources? If we indeed give out far more, then it's natural to think we might be throwing this engine a bit off course; But if it's a small percentage, then why focus on just CO2?

creamcheese wrote:Now, given all of the above as fact, the only question that remains is:
Is human-emitted CO2 the primary cause of the warming we see? [don't even try to question that it is at least part of the warming, no matter how tiny a fraction]

A better question would be: Do our actions out-power the natural inertia of the variables that drive the engine that is our climate for Earth. The climate will always change, it always has.

creamcheese wrote:The above question is essentially where the "controversy" thrives. Now I ask, even if humans aren't primarily causing global warming, aren't all the solutions to global warming beneficial to us anyway? In other words, even if humans have nothing to do with global warming, and it's all a hoax; we should still be using renewable energy sources and protecting our environment.

Well, yes. There's no disagreement between us here, but in what way are these changes to be implemented?
Currently, the COP15 treaty (that failed) has global taxation and regulations that "Must be implemented" to "solve this problem". Doesn't this sound more like a political statement, then a scientific one? We should be empowering the individual person from the bottom up, with choices that will lead them in the direction of self sufficiency; Whilst destroying the monstrosity that is consumerism...

This is what I mean by the hijacking that's taken place. We recognize that our ways are destructive, and that change is needed; But instead of changing through emulation of self sufficient communities "they" have the "answer to our problems". This is methodology that the church uses throughout the ages to captivate people into their cult; Don't fall for the same mind traps that the people you like to refute fall into.

creamcheese wrote:Coal, oil, and natural gas will run out sooner or later. Some predict as early as 2050. Sure, we might find even more remote sources of those fuels, but eventually it will be cheaper to build wind farms and solar panels than to drill 20 miles into the crust for oil. By converting now, we save ourselves the pain of doing it later.

There's oil fields in the caspian sea, alaska, iran, and half of russia that still have more fuel then all of Canada does in its oil sands. There won't be any shortage, and it's only mentioned to play with the price of these commodities.

An interesting side note here: The original model T had a better MPG rating then most cars do today. Whilst computers have skyrocketed in terms of computing power. Why is that?

Wikipedia wrote:The Model T had a front-mounted, 177 in³ (2.9 L) four-cylinder en bloc motor (that is, all four in one block, as common now, rather than in individual castings, as common then) producing 20 hp (15 kW) for a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h). The engine had side valves and three main bearings. Recent accounts credit the default-configuration Model T with fuel economy on the order of 25 to 30 mpg (7.8-9.4 L/100 km). The engine was capable of running on gasoline or ethanol[3], though the decreasing cost of gasoline and the later introduction of Prohibition made ethanol an impractical fuel.

creamcheese wrote:Also... although I admit this would take a very long time to happen, but it could: Carbon dioxide is a toxin [to humans], and if atmospheric levels rise too high, zomg zombie apocalypse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity
Admittedly we would have to have around 20x-30x what we currently have, but I like to take the long view.

This assumes the environment has no capacity to adapt to these new levels, which there is, so if you really are afraid go grow your own food and plant/help propagate as many natural species around you as you can.

Let me know what you think.

CO2 is a broad spectrum greenhouse gas, the wavelengths it absorbs are much wider than water vapor, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been for a good part of the modern era, and we haven't even encountered the feedback from this situation yet--you fail at climatology forever.

Also, CO2 isn't the only factor of AGW, you're completely neglecting other factors such as, but not limited to the albedo effect.

Furthermore, there is not enough usable land area on the surface of the planet for everybody to grow their own food, and growing your own food is arguably less environmentally sound than regulated crops. Don't bother blathering about your conspiracy nonsense unless you can provide peer reviewed literature or arrest records on a global scale.

scalyblue wrote:CO2 is a broad spectrum greenhouse gas, the wavelengths it absorbs are much wider than water vapor, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been for a good part of the modern era, and we haven't even encountered the feedback from this situation yet--you fail at climatology forever.

Does Niocan think that climate scientists have never heard of water vapor? He's already claimed that climate scientists didn't know about the sun... so nothing surprises me anymore.

Niocan's not even being internally consistent in his standpoints anymore, I officially call shenanigans.

scalyblue wrote:Niocan's not even being internally consistent in his standpoints anymore, I officially call shenanigans.

Actually, that's the sign of a true AGW denier... I've never come across one who wasn't self-contradictory, and who didn't circle around various mutually exclusive claims while dodging questions and avoiding reality.

Well, I'm talking about other subjects as well, but you're right. Anyway, I stand by my official call of shenanigans.

scalyblue wrote:Well, I'm talking about other subjects as well, but you're right. Anyway, I stand by my official call of shenanigans.

Well... OK, but I called shenanigans on his whole routine a while back, and I was told that I was being too innocent in my belief that someone could not be so consistently wrong on every single subject discussed on this website.

For my part I think Niocan is probably a real person. It's just extreme ignorance combined with extraordinary arrogance and that's not so rare. What is odd is the persistence, so maybe you guys are on to something.

Aught3 wrote:For my part I think Niocan is probably a real person. It's just extreme ignorance combined with extraordinary arrogance and that's not so rare. What is odd is the persistence, so maybe you guys are on to something.

It is too uniformly wrong across the board. It seems like law of averages would make him right about something ONCE.

I have alternative views in many areas, and yes I'm honestly speaking here. This is a forum, and by nature I'm holding my ground to provide resistance in these topics. I'm not trying by any means to troll, and I think there's a general urge to do that with any alternative idea (relativity speaking).

Stop resorting to strawmanning me.

Niocan wrote:Stop resorting to strawmanning me.

... no one's strawmanning you...

hello hello~
I need help in finding something important.

Does anyone have a link, papers, anything that shows experimentally that carbon dioxide can cause warming? Some kind of experiment with carbon dioxide that has proven beyond doubt it can capture heat and cause warming?

erez87 wrote:Does anyone have a link, papers, anything that shows experimentally that carbon dioxide can cause warming? Some kind of experiment with carbon dioxide that has proven beyond doubt it can capture heat and cause warming?

I doubt it ^.^ But if there is, then can I suggest you compair the effects CO2 has to the effects a Variable Sun has on it's captured planets? [Very interesting solar studies by the way, it's worth a read]

erez87 wrote:Does anyone have a link, papers, anything that shows experimentally that carbon dioxide can cause warming? Some kind of experiment with carbon dioxide that has proven beyond doubt it can capture heat and cause warming?

Google Scholar can be helpful and the IPCC report is extensively referenced perhaps you should start here and see what you can find. The Wiki page might also give you a starting point since it lists references at the bottom of the page.

Other than that I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for. Do you want an experiment that shows carbon dioxide can absorb infrared radiation or a calculation showing that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will trap heat increasing the Earth's temperature? Both could be provided if that's what you're after. These references might help but you'll have to get a copy of the papers yourself. The Martin and Baker paper especially might answer your question, as you can see the effect of carbon dioxide has been known for decades.

Martin, P.E., and E.F. Baker (1932). "The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide." Physical Review 41: 291-303.
Plass, G.N. (1956). "The Influence of the 15 Band on the Atmospheric Infra-Red Cooling Rate." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-29.
Plass, G.N. (1956). "Infrared Radiation in the Atmosphere." American J. Physics 24: 303-21.
Smith, R.N., et al. (1968). Detection and Measurement of Infra-Red Radiation. Oxford: Clarendon.

This one might also interest you. It shows that the Earth is indeed warming.
Hansen, James E., et al. (2005). "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications." Science 308: 1431-35.

erez87 wrote:hello hello~
I need help in finding something important.

Does anyone have a link, papers, anything that shows experimentally that carbon dioxide can cause warming? Some kind of experiment with carbon dioxide that has proven beyond doubt it can capture heat and cause warming?

I don't think the fact that C02 can cause warming is even disputed by the deniers. It is a well-known fact. If it wasn't very good at trapping heat, how would you explain this?

Thanks for everything, was helpful!

Aught3 wrote:

erez87 wrote:Does anyone have a link, papers, anything that shows experimentally that carbon dioxide can cause warming? Some kind of experiment with carbon dioxide that has proven beyond doubt it can capture heat and cause warming?

Google Scholar can be helpful and the IPCC report is extensively referenced perhaps you should start here and see what you can find. The Wiki page might also give you a starting point since it lists references at the bottom of the page.

Other than that I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for. Do you want an experiment that shows carbon dioxide can absorb infrared radiation or a calculation showing that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will trap heat increasing the Earth's temperature? Both could be provided if that's what you're after. These references might help but you'll have to get a copy of the papers yourself. The Martin and Baker paper especially might answer your question, as you can see the effect of carbon dioxide has been known for decades.

Martin, P.E., and E.F. Baker (1932). "The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide." Physical Review 41: 291-303.
Plass, G.N. (1956). "The Influence of the 15 Band on the Atmospheric Infra-Red Cooling Rate." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-29.
Plass, G.N. (1956). "Infrared Radiation in the Atmosphere." American J. Physics 24: 303-21.
Smith, R.N., et al. (1968). Detection and Measurement of Infra-Red Radiation. Oxford: Clarendon.

This one might also interest you. It shows that the Earth is indeed warming.
Hansen, James E., et al. (2005). "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications." Science 308: 1431-35.

Or he can just go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw and watch the experiment done first hand.