1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

A basic look at how climate scientists infer that man-made carbon gases are changing the climate, and how this view is contradicted by other climate scientists who are skeptics.
I am a former science correspondent with an interest in reporting the facts, not the media hype. My thanks to 9thgate for checking my script for errors.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• climate
• change
• global
• warming
• gore
• carbon
• dioxide
• science

[Bulgroz99]

So how did this exact same change and "runaway" mechanism get triggered and reversed hundreds or thousands of times in the past before humans even existed?

[potholer54]

@Bulgroz99 =So how did this exact same change and "runaway" mechanism get triggered and reversed hundreds or thousands of times in the past before humans even existed?= As jahbabylon says, better to message me rather than pose a question on an old video. Long-term warming in the past was triggered by CO2 (and methane, which breaks down into CO2), and it was reduced when weathering dissolved CO2 and locked it into limestone rocks.

[PeteWatts48]

@Bulgroz99 And my point is, iif these facile observations were so compelling, how come scores of very geeky climatologists dont buyt it? AGW is accerptred by the greeat majhority of *all* climatologists, not just UN ones, who claim only to speak from the data FOr a belief to be rational, there has to be at least hypothetical evidence that would make it change, Youir poliytically paranoid simplistic comments are akin to the crass opinions of creationists parodying evolution.

[potholer54]

@Bulgroz99 =a cyclic change that has happened thousands of times in the past= Just out of curiosity, what do you think caused the Earth to warm and cool over long periods in the past if it was not CO2, as geologists have established?

[Bulgroz99]

@PeteWatts48 But it has happened far more than 200 which was my point. Look at sediment samples, they go much further back. I think the small group of "scientists" in the UN, who claim to speak on behalf of every climatologist in the world, may have a political agenda. What would convince me? Lets see: We add an insignificant amount to GW (0.28% factoring in water vapor). We have a sinus curve following the exact same cycle as it did thousands of times before. How about nothing?

[PeteWatts48]

@Bulgroz99 Er no, actually. While I acknowledge the first figfures are correct, you cant assume the cycle has been continual for the whole of earth's history! It didnt freexe over when it was still molten for a start, and at it has also been "snowball earth" - frozen over completely for millions of years continuoously, Do yopu really think hundreds of climatological geeks couldnt have thought of such a facile objection s this? What is the evidence that *would* convinve you of AGW?

[Bulgroz99]

@PeteWatts48 200 times is an understatement, it happened five time in 400.000 years, that means 57.000 times in earths history.

[Bulgroz99]

@PeteWatts48 We are adding minute amounts of heat and CO2 to the atmosphere, compared to mother earth herself and father sun, we are insignificant in the bigger picture. With your logic atheists should explain why there is no god, and people who get arrested should explain why they are innocent right? Reverse burden of evidence I believe its called.

[PeteWatts48]

@Bulgroz99 I think 200 may be overstated?We are already in an unusually warm patch, so cyclical activity would expecty cooling, not warming. The point is we can *see* "arsonists"- ourselves - setting fire to the house, we dont need to speculate. We know we are adding large amounts of heat and greenhouses gases to the atmosphere and we shoud expect non-cyclical warming. If you set fire to a house, you *expect* it to burn down. AGW deniers need to explain why it *wouldnt* happen!