Agnostic.com

17 0

I want to know what you think on the subject of Global Warming?

I am not buying the anthropogenic model (man caused). I think global warming has more to do with solar flares and the weakening geomagnetic field. And this not to say that I don't believe in having clean air.

I put this in the political section because if this issue was science based there would be more than one model for cause of global warming. I look forward to reading your opinions on this idea.

Leutrelle 7 Jan 8
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

17 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

BTW - It is "climate change" not global warming.

0

It is the speed of change that suggests that there is a man-made reason for climate change. We know that the earth is warming faster than before. We know that the depletion of the ozone layer is contributing to these changes. We know that this depletion is due in part to increase CO emissions. To say that Man is not a cause, at least in part, to our current change in climate is denying the scientific facts. 2017 was the warmest year on records for the last 100 years, a trend that can be seen for at least the last 150 years (since the NS was founded). The weather patterns in the US alone have changed over that time since the increase of the industrial revolution increase in carbon emissions.

Word's are tricky. I didn't say man was absolved, if I wasn't clear I will admit that of course man is a factor, but there are other factors. Thank for you for sharing your valid ideas.

1

There is no way to know if man is doing it or not, realistically. The climate has been changing for the life of the planet. Australia had the 2nd hottest day on record couple days ago and the US is currently experiencing some of the coldest on record.

0

There is no way to know if man is doing it or not, realistically. The climate has been changing for the life of the planet. Australia had the 2nd hottest day on record couple days ago and the US is currently experiencing some of the coldest on record.

1

I just wanted to thank all of you for thoughtful comments.

1

Global warming is natural, but accelerated by human activity using fossil fuels. The earth has gone through a number of periods of global warming in its history, and it will do it again.

1

I think it’s a little of all.

I know that these things happen, and have happened, and the fossil record shows no significant loss of life.

Except pollution. New kinds of pollution, are causing new kinds of damage to our planet and it’s systems.

I think the ozone issue and the pollution could cause issues. And I also know that there are no witness accounts to the last ‘change’, so we really don’t know if this is an average change.

0

put it this way . we are polluting the f... out of the air and water. don't you want this to stop? ?

Think I said that.

1

I believe humans aren't helping, but it is cyclic. That being said, I do believe we should be doing something to try to slow it down.

1

Do not forget about deforestation. Trees use carbon dioxide for growth and produce oxygen. We are cutting down trees and the number of rain forests are decreasing in size. Let's not forget that in underdeveloped parts of the world, trees are being cut to produce fuel, and the burning also releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Vehicles, oil refineries, factories and power plants are producing carbon dioxide; at the same time the trees that cleans the atmosphere of it are being cut down. Since the industrial revolution, the carbon emission in the atmosphere has increased exponentially as a result of human actions.

0

There is a difference between natural climate change and that caused by man. Natural climate change is a long process. All the parts involved have time to adjust. Species die out while others grow to fill the void.

Man has pulled carbon out of the ground, which was a part of the previous long process of storing in the ground, at a rate which the oceans cannot absorb. At the same time, we are killing the trees which are natural carbon batteries.

All you have to do is talk to a farmer. They know the growing seasons have changed. They know how the rate of change has impacted their business.

Our livestock, the thawing out of the permafrost, along with burning petroleum and natural gas, it's gotta do something.

What about volcanos, and super volcanos. What about frozen mammoths which so had vegetation in their mouth.

1

Whether it's anthropogenic or not is arbitrary... it's happening. The last time grapes grew in Greenland, the human population was nil. Now that we cover the planet mostly at sea level, it's hugely political thanks to the economics of the consequences. Yet the deniers stick their heads in the sand.

We will all suffer thanks to shortsighted capitalism, and shortsighted political policy.

0

I am not a scientist myself but a very large majority of the scientific community is in agreement. Not understanding it is not an excuse for rejecting it.

4

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Duke Level 8 Jan 8, 2018
3

There were other models, but they failed to stand up to experimental data, that's what science is, we filter out the bad hypotheses, just because you only know of one doesn't mean there weren't more thought up and tossed out.

We know what increased carbon in the atmosphere can do, on an extreme scale as well from observing Venus. There is an entire carbon cycle, and part of it is in warming when carbon is added to the atmosphere.

We also know from ice cores that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which is essentially frozen in layers of the cores, is drastically higher than any point in the earth's history (I'd need to find the scientific journals that give how far back we can go but we're talking pre-human) and not once has it been this high.

If the geomagnetic field were weak enough to heat up the planet then it would also be too weak to retain the atmosphere, warmer days, cooler nights and overall balances out until the water or other essential molecules escape the earth's gravitational pull, which is a leading hypothesis of where the water of mars went, right out the top.

The sun is actually at it's most stable phase in its life cycle but we'd see more ionization from the level of flares needed to cause this amount of warming.

If you want I can access all the scientific journals that have been reviewed and re-reviewed and re-re-reviewed, some might only be abstracts, but the data supports the anthropogenic model as solidly as if you saw a decapitated man and the tool that did it together, you wouldn't go looking for a gunman.

From what I understand it takes a long time for the planet to release all these gases. The Earths geomagnetic field has shut down completely in its history, and reversed polarity several times. According to John L. Casey who worked for NASA the Sun has been in a cooling stage in very recent history. He says according NASA the temperature of planet has been cooling. I appreciate your insight, but I don't think it is a slam dunk. I would feel it wasn't political if some of these theories were shared in a more public forum.

Its not like science is never wrong🙂

I do find this way of thinking intriguing. All the scientists are wrong, but me... "not the scientist..." I'm pretty sure I'm right. And science is wrong all the time... and the SCIENTISTS get together and work it out... you know, with science.

@Leutrelle , the difference between the master and the novice is that the master has failed more times than the novice has even tried.

Casey holds a B.S. in physics and math, as well as a MA in management, but no peer reviewed published scientific journals, only his books which present no scientific data, just personal observations (like gee it's cold; global warming is bogus).

Scientist never assume they're 100%, at best 97%, we even consider uncertainty in our apparatuses that give us data. Which is why scientist are usually retesting the work published by other scientists. Scientist 1 claims: Doing A then B gives C. Scientist 2 claims: Doing A then B gives D. Who is right? Scientist 3 does A then B and gets C, repeats by doing A then b and gets D, oh there's the difference S2 thought he was doing 'B' but really did 'b' and that's why he got D!

As for "geomagnetic field has shut down completely", no it hasn't. It has reversed polarity, known due to magnetic polarity in sections of new sea floor that arose at each period of polarity. In order for a complete shutdown of the field, the earth would have to stop spinning or the core would have to cool to the point that magma no longer flows around the iron center.

Which brings me to a consideration that Casey should have considered, we do know that the core and magma are cooling, albeit very slowly. Which might be what you or Casey is misunderstanding because the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is more concerned with the large Mass of star dust from core to moon and not the 'surface temperature'.

You know how they make ice cream? Evaporation cooling, that's right, by applying an evaporating liquid (very hot) to the surface of the cream container, the container cools. i.e. you can have a 'cooling earth' but a 'warming globe'. Ever been outside in the hottest period of summer with wet clothes on? You can get hypothermia if you're not careful. News report: Man froze to death in the middle of the street during record breaking high.

@DreadlySmart

I am not sure where to start. I think Casey makes good argument 200 year cycle. You need read the book and then comment. I am not. saying you are wrong either. You obviously are more ahead of me on this subject. Truth be told I don't Know. Al Gore wasn't a Scientist, but he changed the path of history. Maybe he is right.

What bothers me is we out sourced much of our industry to China as a reaction to this Global Warming model. You can't even buy a pipe fitting that is made in America. We could make the fitting with much less pollution because of regulations. The pipe fitting would cost more, but we would pollute less than China does. I see a contradiction there if the priority was to save the planet, but it seems the priority is too make money. In the mean time the blue collar middle class suffers when industry is out sourced.

I was in the business of selling ag tractor parts. Most tractor replacement parts are made of cast iron and steel. They are made mostly in China and some were from India. We have lost many many manufacturing jobs. Their were no US made after market parts to by. It is the same way in the automotive industry. The parts are all out sourced.

Casey did not speak on the geomagnitic field. I picked that up on Discovery Channel which said the earth's field has shut down, but they didn't say it shut down completely ( my bad). They did say that poles reversed, and was evidenced through volcanic magnetite. We have never witnessed a polarity flip, so scientists don't know for sure what to expect.

How should I some this up? You make the best defense of Man caused global warming that I have heard to this date.

I have a Question. When does Atlantic Conveyer come into play, and reverse the warming trend? I would also like if you are willing to understand how we could effect the star dust temperature? I am intrigued.

@Leutrelle, feel free to message me too, I will admit some actions taken to lessen global warming are BS, like your example of out sourcing, and maybe that's another reason people don't want to accept it as scientific truth because idiots are in charge of how to fix it(which the head or the EPA is a joke and would be a political topic in line with this). For one the excessive production of CO2 anywhere is a problem, you can't move it to China and say it's fixed. If I can find Casey's book at the library or as an e-book I will give it a chance, I always think of this quote when 'arguing' with my opposition;

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. By Aristotle. Of course if the science and evidence are sound and it resonates with me then I incorporate it and look further but I digress.

Time to hit the science;

Thermohaline circulation aka "Atlantic Conveyor Belt" may be hindered by global warming due in part to the massive amount of fresh water that is being introduced to the oceans from glacial melt, which lowers the saline concentration since no salt is added in compensation. But I'm not certain it could reverse global warming, mainly since water has a higher heat capacitance than say metal, so the ocean is actually more of a reservoir for heat, in fact the thermohaline circulation plays an important role in supplying heat to the polar regions.

Of course as I write this I'm also reading published journals, and have found that the consensus is that it's shutting down(in support of my hindered claim earlier) which would stop that heat to the poles but also prevents the flow of other resources throughout the ocean(different matter though) but this doesn't correlate to a reversal but more of a plateau of polar melt (maybe).

When you say "I would also like if you are willing to understand how we could effect the star dust temperature?" are you referencing my choice of calling earth star dust or something else? I can kind of reference the earth and how we may affect it's temperature (the mass of earth not the surface/atmosphere) but it is harder to have a noticeable impact on the mass than the surface because of how dense it is, the effects don't always ripple as easily with all that resistance.

In writing that last bit I discovered that perhaps the confusion people see with global warming is they include the big hunk of rock beneath our feet in that. To be honest if we had a planetary thermometer to stick into the earth to it's core I feel we haven't caused any noticeable change to the body temperature of earth, but we don't live IN the earth, we live ON it.

Right now it's analogous to putting a piping hot casserole back into an oven that is preheated to a temperature lower than the casserole's center. Before it was put back, the air around the casserole was room temperature, once in the oven the air around it is hotter but the casserole's center is hotter still so the casserole will cool to the oven's temperature but the surface is still hotter than it was outside the oven and that is global warming.

@DreadlySmart actually 95% is a fairly standard confidence interval in science, though there have been calls for it to be raised to 97, or 99% and it is somewhat field dependent.

@Rufus_Maximus, must have been something pushed on me then in college because even my old lab books have 97%... though they're my notes so I could have written it wrong too... several times... but come to think of it the teacher was a hardass so he may have driven for the higher percentage himself. But yeah a google search for it would have corrected my mistake, nice catch, thank you.

2

I know weather patterns fluctuate. I know since the industrial revolution more carbon has been pumped in to the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. Numbers don't lie, core samples of ice from eons ago are real and populatiion numbers are greater than ever before. The oceans are losing oxegen. I can not imagine humans are not having an impact on the over all rise in global temperatures at the equator.

2

Sorry think it is caused by man.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:13731
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.