Moving on global warming vs climate change, there is a difference as one (climate change) refers to natural changes in earth's climate compared to global warming's human induced climate change. We were both wrong in using it and it is often misrepresented elsewhere. Under that heading referring to global warming as climate change is not PC but a misrepresentation and I will from this point forward debate global warming under the name global warming. And call the current situation what I believe it is climate change. (
http://weather.about.com/od/climatechange/f/global_warming_climate_change.htm)
You need to stop relying on misinformation presented at About.com. The information presented at that site is often without attribution or authorship. In this case, it's without attribution, without authorship, and it's simply butt-plain wrong.
Climate change refers to changes in the statistical properties of climate (regional or worldwide) as examined over a long period of time, causation notwithstanding. Global warming refers specifically to the increase in greenhouse gases being a causation of global temperature rises, again over a long period of time. It is, for discussion of these issues in a debate, more appropriate to refer to it all as Climate Change, since debates of this nature discuss periods extending beyond the past 100+ years and refer to both natural and unnatural influences
(Global Warming being a sub-label that is not all-encompassing and that has resulted in much confusion, particularly due to propagandists' exploitation of the word, "warming").
The second part of your statement is inaccurate in light of past incidences of climate change. Although you will (if you take Hellstromm's advice and bother to research) find arguments against what I say in the following. What I point out is that in the past CO2 levels lagged 600-1000 years behind temperature fluctuations, there is not a direct correlation with a lag time of even under a 100 years. It is the rising temperatures that induce the seas to release more CO2 and how is it that temperatures fall back after these large releases? And also there are greater spikes than the current one in the planet's history, albeit they were quite some time ago.
And that's a fallacy of examination. Long past incidents were due to other, often natural, factors <
click here>, with CO2 rises being a consequence of such, and which resulted in even higher temperatures as a result
(note as well these rises were, as you indicated, slowly introduced, with CO2 rises also being far slower). I.e., CO2 did not initiate the rises, but did contribute to it at a later stage. However, and here's your mistake here, CO2 does have an influence. And, as Man has introduced a higher concentration of CO2 into the atmosphere
(faster than it can be converted by natural means), they are indeed influencing the world's climate
(leading, instead of merely amplifying).
As well, your presentation of "greater spikes in the past" is misleading, to say the least. Not only has there "never" been a spike in CO2 levels as dramatic as is presently documented
(change in), incidents of CO2 levels comparable to what we are presently dealing with reaches back to a time when CO2 levels were "normally high." You know, when dinosaurs walked the Earth in sweltering pits of hell? Yeah, umm... way back then, when the dynamics and landscape of the Earth was quite different, far more extreme.
So yes, it is unprecedented, in that there is "nothing presently on Earth" that could have
naturally caused what is
presently being experienced. Point too far in the past, and you ignore the circumstances, take it out of context and argue a fallacy.
Also, that graph you presented does not demonstrate the recent CO2 spike. Convenient, is it not? In fact, if you look at that graph, it only goes as high as about
295 parts per million. Why is that? Well, that's because the graph is pertaining to the Milankovich theory on ice ages, and is not particularly relevant to present-day Global Warming.
You know what it is right now?
393 PARTS PER MILLION! <
click here>
Which means, if we're going to look at a
"true" presentation of that self-same chart, have it address Global Warming in comparison to the whole of Climate Change over the past 400,000 years, it would look like this:
Wala, this clearly demonstrates that the Earth is playing "catch-up" when it comes to temperature rise, and that we're under the gun right now to prevent a rather
dramatic temperature increase.
As for Hellstromm's statements. When it comes to sources my primary support wasn't coming just from "Friend's of Science", I went to a variety places unlike Rice who only presented Physorg articles most of the time.
It is likely that all of your contributing sources were just as tainted as Friend's of Science, but I'm leaving that for Rice to practice with.
And finances, just remember that the sources given to you are funded by the "Green" Industry and "Green" activists who have an equal if not greater interest in supporting climate change as compared to the oil industry whose existence is not driven by global warming.
Patently false. To maintain this bit of propaganda, you'll need to provide evidence. Rice, you should pressure him for it.
And where does that 98% statistic keep on popping up from? Please show me where this "factual" number comes from. And not Hellstromm said, "98% of of the world's leading expert..." Which differs from 98% of scientists as there are by default fewer LEADING experts than scientists.
The 98% comes from many quoted statements, based on polls (and studies), some of which are presented here:
Also, "the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change." Find the source and the proof.
Umm, Lafitte, it's right there on a summary of one of the linked studies I provided earlier. Perhaps you should try and click on some of those links yourself, maybe gain an education on what awaits you in debate.
Okay, out of Windex to clean my monitor, so someone else have fun.
