“If we face this problem head on, if we listen to our best scientists, and act decisively and passionately— I still don’t see any way we can survive.”

:lol:

Ghost forests are appearing along the North American coast as former pine forests change to wetlands due to sea level rise.

There is no definite determination what causes the global warming. We like to blame ourselves, (but leave me out of that please, I take no blame), for burning too much carbon. True, I shan't argue that, it contributes to global warming. But I am not convinced that that alone is the only contributing factor. — god must be atheist

I would recommend you spend more time with counter-arguments. This one in particular is very old and, in my view, long refuted. Unless you're saying that warming isn't completely due to human activity and that nature is involved somehow -- which is a truism.

The rate of warming we see is not due to natural variation. This is well established. A graphic display of the data is helpful -- it's undeniable. It's warming at an alarming pace, and it's doing so because of human activity -- the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc.

So I'm not seeing your point here.

The rate of warming we see is not due to natural variation. This is well established. A graphic display of the data is helpful -- it's undeniable. It's warming at an alarming pace, and it's doing so because of human activity -- the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc. — Xtrix

Indeed a graph is indeed helpful.

For people that are unsure what to make of it:

We breaking out of an over 2 million year pattern that nearly all complex species and ecosystems are currently adapted too, the pace of change is also unprecedented, going into the complete climate unknown.

But to make matters worse, even though there are large up's and downs with glaciation and inter-glacial periods (within a long term pattern ecosystems are adapted to), the pace of change of these glaciations and inter-glacials is about 1 degree per 1000 years at the fastest, resulting in steep but still noticeable slopes on 800 000 year time line ... whereas today it is vertical line.

So, not only are we going somewhere we really don't want to go, we're going there faster than the climate has ever shifted in millions of years.

To make matters worse, in the previous glacial-interglacial shifts, nothing came along and "softened up" the ecosystems causing wide spread damage before and during the relatively gentle temperature rise or decrease, so ecosystems were at their full capacity to deal with the (extremely slow, relative to today) change.

We are running 2 global climate experiments while at the same time just straight up destroying ecosystems directly with logging, fishing, agriculture, urban sprawl, damning, pollution of all sorts.

Simple question: in the two graphs above, on both of them, CO2 is shown as going from 300 to 400, on a vertical line, whereas temperature remains hovering around Zero, not increasing at all much over zero.

Why is that called then a global warming? If CO2 is human-related, and the temperature does not rise, to me the only conclusion you can draw is that human activity does not make the temperature rise.

Look at the graphs. It is a clear, unambiguous depiction. CO2 rises, temperature does not.

Look at it again, if you don't believe me. The brown line (CO2 concentration) increases 30 percent, the blue line (temperature) remains at the same level.

I mean, I did not even have to hunt for a graph or anything to shoot your argument down. You presented this graph which destroys your own argument.

I think you guys just shot yourselves in the foot.

I think you guys just shot yourselves in the foot. — god must be atheist

If you look at the historic cycle, you're seeing the temperature leading the CO2 change. When the oceans cool, they absorb more CO2, and same thing for warming.

The last lead up to the present is showing the opposite: CO2 rise first, and then temperature will follow. There's a delay between CO2 emission and temperature rise.

The way we know we've already altered the climate isn't from looking at that kind of graph. It's from computer modeling that predicts what the temperature would be now without the CO2 we've put up. Still, some scientists argue there could have been other causes, but they're in the minority at this point.

I mean, I did not even have to hunt for a graph or anything to shoot your argument down. You presented this graph which destroys your own argument.

I think you guys just shot yourselves in the foot. — god must be atheist

:gasp: :rofl:

Yes, so I guess we can throw out all that consensus— you’ve discovered something all the world’s experts have missed. Please take your discovery to a local climatology department and explain to them that clearly human activity isn’t affecting climate change.

Or you could stop and think for three seconds about whether your statements are ignorant and embarrassing. Your choice.

Just a result from a quick Google search about the relationship between CO2 and temperature:

___
Why doesn’t the temperature rise at the same rate that CO2 increases?

The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 400 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.

A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.

There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.

As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you’ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F).

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

The speed of the increase is worth noting too. Unfortunately, as this quote from NASA demonstrates, anthropogenic climate change is happening very quickly compared to changes that occurred in the past (text emboldened for emphasis):

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
___________

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

So that’s the last time I take you seriously I guess. Oh well.

I see it when talking to workers too — Xtrix

Who are "workers"?

Still, some scientists argue there could have been other causes, but they're in the minority at this point. — Tate

That's precisely my point. Global warming had become and has been heavily politicized. And in its drag it politicized science.

Now we look for data that serve a political movement. Not in the service of truth.

So all the people who blame humanity ALONE for the global warming are nothing but puppets of a political game and they themselves are so absorbed in it, that they don't realize that reality has not been captured yet.

The minority scientists could be wrong, or the majority. At this point all we know is that there is no definite theory that gets complete buy-in; the consensus is of the majority, not of the entirety; and it serves a political purpose which skews the scientific finding's meaning. Furthermore, the politicization has bent minds as well, who swear by a definitive explanation that is not at all necessarily the truth.

There's some truth to that. Zealotry has set in, and yet scientists are as free as they ever were to investigate.

At this point all we know is that there is no definite theory that gets complete buy-in; the consensus is of the majority, not of the entirety — god must be atheist

We don't usually require 100% buy-in before we accept scientific consensus. Hundreds of scientists the world over have looked at the question and come up with the same answer: we're changing the climate.

We don't usually require 100% buy-in before we accept scientific consensus. — Tate

Who are "we"?

Zealotry has set in, and yet scientists are as free as they ever were to investigate. — Tate

Not quite. Scientific research requires a lot of money. Money comes from political sources. I think you know where this is heading. Scientists are NOT free to investigate as they wish.

Who are "we"? — god must be atheist

All sorts of people, but mainly engineers.

Not quite. Scientific research requires a lot of money. Money comes from political sources. I think you know where this is heading. Scientists are NOT free to investigate as they wish — god must be atheist

Well if that's true, we're hopelessly in the dark about pretty much everything. Let's go back to the Stone Age and start over.

Hundreds of scientists the world over have looked at the question and come up with the same answer: we're changing the climate. — Tate

This is meaningful only if you know the number of scientists who have also looked the question and come up with a different answer. Without supplying that number, the "hundreds" alone is completely not indicative of anything.

Well if that's true, we're hopelessly in the dark about pretty much everything. Let's go back to the Stone Age and start over. — Tate

You're turning into an Xtrix with your snide remark and ignoring my arguments, rendering them moot by assuming they are ridiculously stupid. They are not.

we're changing the climate — Tate

Yes, we are!! I am not arguing that. I am arguing that there is or might be natural forces that are precipitating this change, and that the global warming is not created by man alone.

Of course I have no data or theory to back this up. It is complete conjecture on my part. But there are scientists -- like you said -- who have conducted research and say the same thing.

we're changing the climate
— Tate
Yes, we are!! I am not arguing that. I am arguing that there is or might be natural forces that are precipitating this change, and that the global warming is not created by man alone. — god must be atheist

Ok.

I studied the charts. It is clear that the vertical scales are arbitrary as far as comparison goes. The only thing that can decide what precedes what is the direction of the slope (upward or downward from left to right) of the two colours.

You were quite right in determining that temperature change (historically) determined the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The remarkable thing I wish to point out here is that SOMETHING precipitated the temperature change. It became an accelerated process; the cooler, the less CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer, the more CO2, and the CO2 concentration also helped in the cooling and heating process. But the change in direction was never a function of the effect of the CO2 concentration. SOMETHING ELSE effected it.

Do we know what that something else was? this is not a rhetorical question; please, Tate, if you care, tell me just the fact whether we know what that force of heat energy sink or source was.

If we know what it was, then we can look for it in today's world.

If we don't know what it was, then we can't be so sure that it's not acting right now.

This actually a empirical evidence to support my theory that global warming is not purely man-made. And without your graph I would not have discovered this evidence.

Another way to look at it is that temperature did change over time. If it were only a function of CO2 concentration, in an accelerated process, the slope of the curve of temperature would never change from up to down, and from down to up as we proceed left to right on the timeline. Yet it does.

This is clear indication that there are forces other than man-made that make global warming and cooling.

Since these forces exist, and whether we know their nature or origin or not, we CAN'T RULE THEM OUT AS ACTIVE FORCES, AND RENDER THEM TO BE MERE IMPOTENT BYSTANDERS IN THE CHANGE WE EXPERIENCE AND MEASURE TODAY.

Yes, Xtrix, make fun of my choice of words. You are so good at snide remarks and ridiculing others, while your thinking capacity is, in my opinion, seriously lagging and lacking. You should be a journalist, not a philosopher, because at the latter, my friend, you suck, if you ask me.

Do we know what that something else was? this is not a rhetorical question; please, Tate, if you care, tell me just the fact whether we know what that force of heat energy sink or source was. — god must be atheist

Yes. The Earth's axis wobbles. It goes around in a circle over a period of about 41,000 years. There are times when the axial position points the northern hemisphere further away from the sun. Under the right conditions, this will initiate glaciation due to build-up of ice which reflects light back out to space. Then the oceans cool and absorb CO2, cooling things down even further. All of this is possible because we're in a large scale ice age characterized by oceanic currents that allow "deep water.". This is water that never comes to the surface and so it stays cold, cooling the surface.

Another factor is the Earth's orbit, which is sometimes elliptical, and sometimes more circular.

If we know what it was, then we can look for it in today's world. — god must be atheist

They know about those factors, but there are still unknowns.

This is clear indication that there are forces other than man-made that make global warming and cooling. — god must be atheist

Of course. The Earth's climate changes all the time because of natural forces. It wouldn't just stay the way it is now whether we influence it or not.

In conclusion: Current mainstream scientific opinion is that the CO2 concentration increased, and that was a product of human activity. This causes global warming.

My counterpoint: in the past global warming and cooling were caused by non-man-made activities. Those global heat energy producing or reducing forces could still be working today. We don't know what effected them, and what the forces were; so we are not at a liberty by logical and scientific thought to dismiss those forces as not being a part of today's global climate change.

Aside from the causes (whether they were only man-made or a mix of man-and-nature), the alarmist attitude of species extinction and human extinction can be brought to be questioned.

The carbon dioxide effect is huge, as per the sudden unprecedented increase of carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. But it is not an infinitely progressing increase. It will level off somewhere, hopefully at a spot that causes temperatures and climates that still allow biological life forms to survive, and human beings to survive.

After all, if the climate becomes a killer, then human population will quickly decrease, and some surviving members will not produce an ever-increasing number of CO2 molecules; these people may be high-ranking government officials, men and women, and their spouses, who hide and survive in bunkers.

The flora will thrive in the hot, carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere. They will turn the excess carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and fibres, sugar.

Sooner or later the climate returns to the temperate behaviour that supports complex life.

In conclusion: Current mainstream scientific opinion is that the CO2 concentration increased, and that was a product of human activity. This causes global warming. — god must be atheist

Correct

We don't know what effected them, and what the forces were; so we are not at a liberty by logical and scientific thought to dismiss those forces as not being a part of today's global climate change. — god must be atheist

We do know what the forces were. I just described it to you.

the alarmist attitude of species extinction and human extinction can be brought to be questioned. — god must be atheist

Scientists don't expect human extinction to take place due to global warming.

The flora will thrive in the hot, carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere. They will turn the excess carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and fibres, sugar. — god must be atheist

That's correct. That's already started happening. The earth is getting greener.

We do know what the forces were. I just described it to you. — Tate

My impression was that you said the causes we suspect are insufficient in explaining the phenomenon. This leads me to believe that there were forces other than wobbling and deep water currents. Your kind explanation was clear on that. So the statement "we do know what those forces were", is, I am sorry, false.

Scientists don't expect human extinction to take place due to global warming. — Tate

Maybe, but I am going by the clip on the Video displayed on the top of this page. That, as far as I can see it, predicts human extinction. That's why I brought this up.

This is what the official opinion is, as I read it (thanks to Xtrix for the contribution)

“If we face this problem head on, if we listen to our best scientists, and act decisively and passionately— I still don’t see any way we can survive.” — Xtrix

My impression was that you said the causes we suspect are insufficient in explaining the phenomenon. — god must be atheist

That's true, but it's like we're collecting puzzle pieces. We don't have all of them yet.

So the statement "we do know what those forces were", is, I am sorry, false. — god must be atheist

True.

Maybe, but I am going by the clip on the Video displayed on the top of this page. That, as far as I can see it, predicts human extinction. — god must be atheist

If so, it's bullshit.

Thanks and thanks. I think my job here is done. :-)

I just hoped to have found someone on this site who listens to reason instead of just arguing the current the scientific trends that are in vogue.

Thanks and thanks. I think my job here is done. — god must be atheist

Alrighty then.

My only worry is that we could be barking up the wrong tree so to speak. There's a really good correlation between CO₂ levels and global average temperatures; it seems so obvious what's happening and therein lies the rub. What if this is a case of 3^rd party causation i.e. tertium quid (an unknown factor X causing both rise in CO₂ and global warming?

Precisely. That's what I've been advocating, too, on these pages. Only problem is, Agent Smith, we haven't found this Agent X that causes both. Nobody is even looking for it, the scientific community is so complacently satisfied that CO2 increase is what causes global warming, and that it's human created.

Precisely. That's what I've been advocating, too, on these pages. Only problem is, Agent Smith, we haven't found this Agent X that causes both. Nobody is even looking for it, the scientific community is so complacently satisfied that CO2 increase is what causes global warming, and that it's human created. — god must be atheist

When you heat up coke/pepsi, the CO₂ bubbles out!