Is man causing global warming?

I'm a natural skeptic. Does the Wizard have an opinion on the validity of arguments that global warming exists and that man is the cause? Have you seen enough data to make any conclusion from a mathematical basis?

I would certainly agree that global warming exists. How much of it is caused by man is the harder question. I lean towards believing that carbon based pollution, including livestock, is positively correlated to global warming, but there are other factors at play. Even without global warming reasons, I favor efforts to use less energy. I think a good start would be a tax system that is based on what we consume, not what we create.

As a disclaimer, I don’t consider myself an expert on this topic by any means.

There was a former project called Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate or ATOC where a steady low frequency hum is sent through the deep sound channel. Because the speed of sound is dependent on the temperature of the water it should change over time if the water is increasing in temperature even a fraction of a degree.

The advantage of this temperature measurement is that it is a single measurement over a large global region, and the deep ocean is below the effects of weather which only effect the surface miles.

The ongoing research is called NPAL .

I agree with the Wizard (which is a good bet on this site). The power of statistics is pretty good however at pretty much showing a trend which will agree with your beliefs, and I lived the consequences of not going along with the prevailing beliefs.

In 2nd year university I was able to highly correlate global temperature fluctuations with volcanic eruptions and sunspots. During my final summer I was on an NSERC study with a professor who wanted to prove that there was a relationship between a Cepheid's magnitude fluctuations with another factor (I think it might have been temperature). My research disproved her theory and I was quietly held in disfavor for the following year.

That said, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to conclude that the earth's current temperature us strongly related to the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. It is highly probable that our use of fossil fuels contributes to the presence of these gases.

Even if not true, what is true is that the earth's resources are finite and we have a duty to conserve what we can and to invent technologies to use these resources at a slower rate and to diversify out energy use so that our children can grow up with the same opportunities that we did.

Quote: marksolberg

I'm a natural skeptic. Does the Wizard have an opinion on the validity of arguments that global warming exists and that man is the cause? Have you seen enough data to make any conclusion from a mathematical basis?

I think a bigger question is how can we prove a trend with so little data. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The USA has kept temperature records for about 150 years. Most og the world has kept them for far less time. The temperature records we do have are not totally comparable since before the 1950s or so they took temps in the cities, since then the airport. In places lie Vegas and Phoenix the airport is close in, but in many places it is 20-30+ miles away, enough to make a difference.

Even if we skip all that 150 years of 4.5 billion is .0000033%. This like asking 100 people in the USA who they want for POTUS and projecting that. That is based on 300MM population and not taking into account those < 18 years old and non-voters. It gets worse when you look at this is the 150 years of USA temps and places like Africa may have no reliable records. So it would be like asking 100 people in just say San Francisco and New York who they would vote for and projecting off that. Yikes!

I freely admit my math is on a level of Algebra I and a few statistics courses. So the exacts may be off a little, but the premise is the same--we don't have a long enough data set to prove a meaningful trendline. "Tree Ring" data will not give anything near an accurate enough reading to go back further since there are more varriables than temperature in tree growth.

Look at all the data problems and "lost" records we have discovered. Something literally does not add up!

But if all of this doesn't make you a skeptic, ask yourself why more taxes and less freedom is the "answer."

Quote:

I think a bigger question is how can we prove a trend with so little data. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The USA has kept temperature records for about 150 years. Most og the world has kept them for far less time. The temperature records we do have are not totally comparable since before the 1950s or so they took temps in the cities, since then the airport. In places like Vegas and Phoenix the airport is close in, but in many places it is 20-30+ miles away, enough to make a difference.

The earth has tons of records that establish links between atmospheric carbon dioxide with temperature, in carbon-dating, soil samples, and other methods. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been measured over time and the temperature has also been measured. Of course all of the measurements is scientific theory and since we weren't alive to take the records, it could all be a pile of bull.

The science behind the amount of radiation retained in the atmosphere as a result of increased greenhouse gases is well established. The less radiation that is reflected back into space results in temperature increase. The radiation equation can accurately predict the global temperature of the earth and explains the effect that the presence of our atmosphere has on our temperature.

Now, are there feedbacks that enhance or negate these effects? Absolutely! The radiation received by the earth is not constant because the sun has different outputs. The reflectivity of the earth (its albedo) changes according to the cloud cover and ice content on the oceans. Volcanoes and our activity spew dust into the atmosphere, lowering the radiation received.

Quote:

Even if we skip all that 150 years of 4.5 billion is .0000033%. This like asking 100 people in the USA who they want for POTUS and projecting that. That is based on 300MM population and not taking into account those < 18 years old and non-voters. It gets worse when you look at this is the 150 years of USA temps and places like Africa may have no reliable records. So it would be like asking 100 people in just say San Francisco and New York who they would vote for and projecting off that. Yikes!

You are relying and disputing on one set of records (temperature readings). It has been proven that even with the airport and discrepancies taken into effect, the temperature records still show a warming trend.

Quote:

But if all of this doesn't make you a skeptic, ask yourself why more taxes and less freedom is the "answer."

AZ, the scientists don't work for the government. The overwhelming consensus of scientists all over the world (who are funded independently) pretty much concur that global warming is the real deal.

There are plenty of other arguments to support using less fossil fuels: reliance on other neutral and or unfriendly governments that control the world's supply and the reduction of the supply of these fuels.

--
And as for the question of more taxes and less freedom, if your household is in debt, you have two choices: increase income or reduce spending. Clearly, the government, under Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, aren't really interested in reducing spending, so the only choice (to them) is to raise taxes.

And what is less freedom anyway? The fact that small businesses have to provide health insurance and that citizens without health insurance have to pay into a government plan based on income? How does that relate to less freedom? I would think that giving the 40 million Americans the ability to live a healthy life without having to declare medical bankruptcy would result in more freedom.

Quote:

AZ, the scientists don't work for the government. The overwhelming consensus of scientists all over the world (who are funded independently) pretty much concur that global warming is the real deal.

Actually the scientists do in fact work for the government. NASA is government and universities are government funded. The UN is government funded worldwide. And 30 years ago the "consensus" was we were having "global cooling." What would be more rational to say is that the temperature of the earth is not constant; the radiation of the sun is not constant; and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not constant. We know warming and cooling trends last up to thousands and tens of thousands of years. This is not something humans can control.

Quote:

There are plenty of other arguments to support using less fossil fuels: reliance on other neutral and or unfriendly governments that control the world's supply and the reduction of the supply of these fuels.

The market can sort that out. If we were serious about using less "imported" oil we would be drilling in ANWR and offshore. We are not. Dik Cheney made the totally correct point that conservastion may be noble, but it will not make us energy independent. The population grows, the economy grows, old wells produce less, thus we should be drilling.

It is not for "the government" to decide we need to move off of oil. The government didn't get Drake to drill a well in 1859. If solar and wind are so good, someone should develop them. "Global Warming" is proving to be a fad and fake what with all the lost records and spoofed numbers we are finding. I don't want to destroy our economy based on it.

Quote:

And as for the question of more taxes and less freedom, if your household is in debt, you have two choices: increase income or reduce spending. Clearly, the government, under Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, aren't really interested in reducing spending, so the only choice (to them) is to raise taxes.

Has been the case for far too long, but if you look around people are finally saying "enough." NJ will be a big test. New govenor says "no new taxes, let teachers take a pay cut." Can he stand up is the question.

Quote:

And what is less freedom anyway? The fact that small businesses have to provide health insurance and that citizens without health insurance have to pay into a government plan based on income? How does that relate to less freedom? I would think that giving the 40 million Americans the ability to live a healthy life without having to declare medical bankruptcy would result in more freedom.

Simple. Right now I have the freedom to choose to not buy health insurance or buy a minimal plan and use that money for something else I prefer. Requiring small businesses to buy more health insurance for employees will just mean fewer small businesses and fewer jobs at those that remain. If the 40MM want health insurance they should buy it and give up something else. HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT A "RIGHT."

Just wondering how many of you have heard that the UN Global Warming Committee has recently announced that the Himalaya glaciers will not have melted in 25 years as previously stated. It is major news in Europe but has gotten very little press in North America. Apparently the Indian scientist from whom they had accepted the data has now admitted he fugded his numbers.

I admit to being a sceptic on climate change but will believe good science. This is at least the second admittance of fudged data in the last year. I think the issue has become too much of a religion for many people now. The additude for far too many people on both sides of the issue has become my mind is made up don't confuse me with facts.

Good thing that your opinion is now clear, AZ. Let me say however that I do like you as a fellow citizen of the world. I don't want to get into an argument with you online as there are facts to support both sides of the equation. And this Canadian whack-job lefties don't want to get into any discussion online about the merits of government funded health care.

I look at it as a risk/reward thing. The risks of not changing our way of living are high, and the rewards of changing them are also high even if global warming is not caused by our mechanized way of life.

However... despite that my opinion is that what was sustainable on a small scale becomes unsustainable on a large scale, I believe that the reality of it is that nothing will change. There are too many vested interests, not individual interests but national and cultural interests that will not be changed. Rational arguments do not get aired; only the shrill denunciations of the fringe of the anti- crowd and the apocalyptic scenarios of the fringe of the pro- crowd get any air time.

I get my only real chance to have my voice heard once a year, at the polls. I take it. It's all I can do.