ScienceDebate 2008

[Kai]

You could use physical evidence of implied CO2 emmissions to imply anthropogenic acceleration.

I'm not sure, myself. I'm not a climatologist. I don't know much about that science. I know quite a bit about water resources, so I could easily argue that the impact of human pollution upon fresh and marine waters of the world is unsustainable. I don't know about climate change though.

[Vene]

How do you know that? 

The fact that Co₂ absorbs infrared radiation:

The fact that this absorbance increases the heat energy in an atom of carbon dioxide, and the fact that humans have been pumping CO[/sub]2[/sub] into the atmosphere over the past 150 years or so.  Not to mention that I have read literature and opinions by climatologists (an example).  I tend to trust the people who study the climate to get it right.  Especially when I consider the track record of scientific thought.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

And I think this is precisely the nature of the problem.

When science found hard evidence that asbestos was not good, the government responded. Hard evidence that tobacco causes cancer, and we get a response... same for most other areas that the government and science have crossed on before... Hard Evidence = Action.

The problem with global warming/cooling/climate change is that hard evidence will likely show up around the time that we're swimming with the polar bears and fighting over some island chain that used to be West Virgina.

it's easy to take 20,000 humans and say 50% smoke and they have high cancer rates, 50% don't smoke and they have lower rates. It's much more difficult with this, since we have no other planets for comparison and we're not even too sure about the patient history on this issue.

And, of course, unlike Tobacco or Asbestos, God would never let the planet go to hell.... I mean, until he comes down and does the job personally.

[Kai]

I was reading something from The Immense Journey by Loren Eisley last night. Its the chapter where Eisley goes on and on about the abyss, the deep ocean, and how it was only secondarily colonized. this was back in the 40s or 50s when Eisley wrote it. He said that scientists used to think life developed and came from the deep but now we know that wasn't true.

30-50 years later, Hydrothermal vent ecosystems based entirely on chemosynthetic bacteria that oxidize sulfur were discovered and now the hypothesis is that life likely developed in places like that. Yet Eisley, a rather good scientist and physical anthropologist, an intelligent person, was so sure that life couldn't have originated down there.

We didn't have all the information, we still don't have all the information.

[Vene]

I was reading something from The Immense Journey by Loren Eisley last night. Its the chapter where Eisley goes on and on about the abyss, the deep ocean, and how it was only secondarily colonized. this was back in the 40s or 50s when Eisley wrote it. He said that scientists used to think life developed and came from the deep but now we know that wasn't true.

30-50 years later, Hydrothermal vent ecosystems based entirely on chemosynthetic bacteria that oxidize sulfur were discovered and now the hypothesis is that life likely developed in places like that. Yet Eisley, a rather good scientist and physical anthropologist, an intelligent person, was so sure that life couldn't have originated down there.

We didn't have all the information, we still don't have all the information.

I understand the data is limited, the data is always limited.  Another example would be that the data available for studying evolution is limited, but do biologists doubt that?  Do you doubt that?  Sure, hypothetically tomorrow a genuine rabbit fossil could be found in the precambrian, but the odds of it are insignificant.

I guess the questions here are, does anybody doubt that CO₂ absorbs electromagnetic radiation?  Does anybody doubt that humans have released a hell of a lot of it into the atmosphere? (do I really have to post the chemical equation for the oxidation of hydrocarbons?)

Now, let's say I'm completely wrong and carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming.  CO₂ is also responsible for other environmental harm.  Carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid.  This is what makes acid rain acidic.  Do I really have to post some of the effects of acid rain?  Is everyone here familiar with what acid can do?  This reaction also has a nasty effect in the oceans, actually, the same effect.  At the current rate of CO₂ emissions the pH of the oceans will drop 0.5 units by 2100 (note: pH is a logarithmic scale).  This is an unprecedented rate of change (link).  I don't know what the full effects would be, but I do know that it's a fucking huge change in the global environment.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, first off, limited data doesn't mean we can't have theories, working hypothesis or useful models... but without hard fact, you're not gonna convince J Random Umerikin that global warming is anything other than Liberal bullshit.

I understand the harm that CO2 is doing, even barring the global warming issue... I mean we seem to be one of the few species that willingly add poisons into our habitat. It's asinine.

However, since global warming became a political football, facts aren't gonna get in the way of people's opinion... at least not until they're cold, hard, obvious facts that don't require any scientific knowledge to grok. Once you show them a North Pole that's liquid in December, you'll change some minds. Once you show them firestorms sweeping across the West, and London is like Venice... then they'll say "Oh hey, we should do something about this global warming stuff."

Until then, we're probably best off  praying that  there's a God willing to keep humans from killing themselves

[Vene]

Well, first off, limited data doesn't mean we can't have theories, working hypothesis or useful models... but without hard fact, you're not gonna convince J Random Umerikin that global warming is anything other than Liberal bullshit.

I have hard facts to support other theories (evolution, the big bang, radiometric dating), but J Random Umerikin thinks that those are Liberal bullshit too.  And I don't think that the people here are J Random Umerikin.

...at least not until they're cold, hard, obvious facts that don't require any scientific knowledge to grok.

And here's the problem.  Science isn't easy.  It can be counter-intuitive.  A climatologist could present a huge list of evidence in support of GW and what the possible consequences are, but that's not going to mean anything to J Random Umerikin.  If I didn't have a background in chemistry I would have a significantly harder time understanding this stuff.

Until then, we're probably best off  praying that  there's a God willing to keep humans from killing themselves

You do that, it ain't gonna help, but you do that.

[nurbldoff]

I guess the questions here are, does anybody doubt that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation?

Well it's not like it doesn't give it back.

CO2 is also responsible for other environmental harm.  Carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid.  This is what makes acid rain acidic.

Actually I think it's mostly sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain.

Not that I'm necessarily arguing against your main point, I'm just nitpicking.

[Kai]

I was reading something from The Immense Journey by Loren Eisley last night. Its the chapter where Eisley goes on and on about the abyss, the deep ocean, and how it was only secondarily colonized. this was back in the 40s or 50s when Eisley wrote it. He said that scientists used to think life developed and came from the deep but now we know that wasn't true.

30-50 years later, Hydrothermal vent ecosystems based entirely on chemosynthetic bacteria that oxidize sulfur were discovered and now the hypothesis is that life likely developed in places like that. Yet Eisley, a rather good scientist and physical anthropologist, an intelligent person, was so sure that life couldn't have originated down there.

We didn't have all the information, we still don't have all the information.

I understand the data is limited, the data is always limited.  Another example would be that the data available for studying evolution is limited, but do biologists doubt that?  Do you doubt that?  Sure, hypothetically tomorrow a genuine rabbit fossil could be found in the precambrian, but the odds of it are insignificant.

I guess the questions here are, does anybody doubt that CO₂ absorbs electromagnetic radiation?  Does anybody doubt that humans have released a hell of a lot of it into the atmosphere? (do I really have to post the chemical equation for the oxidation of hydrocarbons?)

Now, let's say I'm completely wrong and carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming.  CO₂ is also responsible for other environmental harm.  Carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid.  This is what makes acid rain acidic.  Do I really have to post some of the effects of acid rain?  Is everyone here familiar with what acid can do?  This reaction also has a nasty effect in the oceans, actually, the same effect.  At the current rate of CO₂ emissions the pH of the oceans will drop 0.5 units by 2100 (note: pH is a logarithmic scale).  This is an unprecedented rate of change (link).  I don't know what the full effects would be, but I do know that it's a fucking huge change in the global environment.

A hydrologist would say that there is always carbonic acid in rain. Its a natural part of coming in contact with CO2 in the atmosphere whether we create it or not, and I don't see the overal concentrations of C02 changing in the atmosphere. Still at 387 ppm on average. They might suggest that nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides are a much more potent agent for acid rain, as carbonic acid is relatively weak. Its what makes limestone caves, and that sort of thing has been going on for a long time.

As for the pH change in the oceans, I need a citation on that. Its possible, but it might just be caused by NOx and SOx.

[Jasper]

Not sure what to look for in the article, because my chem is pretty weak, but here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also, I think it might be fun to concoct a completely bullshit, but entirely believable, argument against (or for) Global Warming and see how well we could get it to propagate.?

[Jasper]

There are already enough people doing that.  I'd rather just get to the bottom of this and avoid this catastrophe altogether.

[Kai]

Not sure what to look for in the article, because my chem is pretty weak, but here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

I know how the carbonate species work, so I understood it rather well. I also read the possible impacts section, and there are ambiguous data. I'm not sure who to believe on this, any of it really. I know evolution is a fact from my own work and research in biology, but I don't know enough about this other stuff to make any educated predictions.

[Jasper]

My position, however unencumbered with hard science, is that no matter what- whether we're actually influencing the global environment in any way or not, in any shape or form, we have got to stop littering in the ocean.  It is at the very least an insult to life itself.  We ought not be shitting where life presumably began.

[Vene]

My position, however unencumbered with hard science, is that no matter what- whether we're actually influencing the global environment in any way or not, in any shape or form, we have got to stop littering in the ocean.  It is at the very least an insult to life itself.  We ought not be shitting where life presumably began.

This.  We do not have a good track record for taking care of our planet.

By the way, I did give a link for ocean acidification:
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2005/July/01070501.asp