 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
0_equals_true
Genuine Charlatan
Joined: Apr 06, 2007
Age: 27
Posts: 6992
Location: London
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| number5 wrote: | | I have a degree in atmospheric science with a minor in math and physics and a strong focus on climatology. I can tell with absolute certainty that humans do indeed have a significant impact on the climate. |
Despite what I said I have to laugh at people who almost think they have no impact on anything. I don't know…there is something amusing about their total lack of common sense. 
_________________
Nobody's mom |
|
| Back to top |
|
Wombat
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 08, 2006
Posts: 624
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I almost live on the Internet and I read all sides of every question.
I believe that "global warming" and "man made climate change" is horse sh**.
In the past the world has been both much warmer and much colder than it is today and it wasn't caused by cavemen driving S UV's.
There was the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age which only ended 150 years ago.
They have discovered a city off the coast of Egypt which was not underwater several thousand years ago but is now.
They say that the people in Britain walked over a land bridge which joined England to Europe.
Can you imagine the people of those times saying "OMG! If this warming keeps up then England will become an island and all our farms will be under water"?
Welcome to reality.
Climate change happens. We didn't cause it and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Inventor
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: New Orleans
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
As for Human Caused, they have made a mess. But I just see this one as, It's Everybodies Fault.
Love Canal, all the other Superfund sites, were with Government permission.
Millions of tons of Tetra Ethel Lead, Government approved.
Flourocarbons, Government.
Dioxen, Government.
DDT, Government.
From Rachel Carson on it was stop and clean up the Air, Water, and the Earth.
There has been some progress.
Global Warming puts the problem on the Consumer. It is a way of evading the fact that it is producers that cause the problem, with Government Permission.
All the trees cut down for the housing boom were sucking up Carbon.
Old growth and National Forests were clear cut, for jobs, and yes, Carbon did spike when the trees were gone.
Global Warming, Global Cooling, It has been one or the other over many thousands of years.
Forests do moderate the swings, so yes, it will get hotter faster. Carbon will build up.
What forests we have are mostly in a short term rotation for paper and 2 x 4s. Hardly more than tall grass. Old forests are taller, with several stories of plants, all consuming Carbon.
Most of the Carbon production comes from coal fired electric plants. Cheap and Dirty, plus coal slag, ash, and metals that would be banned if they were part of an industrial process.
Cap and Trade is a way of them continuing, and everyone else paying for the damage.
I like my Juice, but getting rid of the dirty plants is the first step. When the price of power goes up, more wind and sun power becomes affordable. Cheap power keeps the dirty plants blocking new development.
Cap and Trade would keep them in business for another generation.
Source Pollution is the problem, not the results of the problem, Global Warming.
Reducing emitions, and planting long term carbon sinks, forever forests, and the problem will decline.
Al Gore is a Lobbyist for dirty coal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 2174
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wombat wrote: | I almost live on the Internet and I read all sides of every question.
I believe that "global warming" and "man made climate change" is horse sh**.
In the past the world has been both much warmer and much colder than it is today and it wasn't caused by cavemen driving S UV's.
There was the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age which only ended 150 years ago.
They have discovered a city off the coast of Egypt which was not underwater several thousand years ago but is now.
They say that the people in Britain walked over a land bridge which joined England to Europe.
Can you imagine the people of those times saying "OMG! If this warming keeps up then England will become an island and all our farms will be under water"?
Welcome to reality.
Climate change happens. We didn't cause it and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. |
I think you're having a problem separating media hype and uninformed speculation with real scientific opinion. The sea-level variation and climatic changes you mentioned are well covered in the scientific literature, and I don't recall having read anyone disputing that those are still relevant and occuring now. However, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution and are now the highest they've been for hundreds of thousands of years. That is due to human activity. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are implicated across geological time in causing massive environmental change. I've even read papers by Exxon geologist accepting this, although within the context of large-scale volcanic activity that occurs very infrequently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
0_equals_true
Genuine Charlatan
Joined: Apr 06, 2007
Age: 27
Posts: 6992
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ascan wrote: | | atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are implicated across geological time in causing massive environmental change. I've even read papers by Exxon geologist accepting this, although within the context of large-scale volcanic activity that occurs very infrequently. |
Volcanic activity might help out. Large scale eruptions can cause global dimming (most people don't know about global dimming), it is a phenomenon that can cancel out global warming. It has a cooling effect on the earth. It does need to be powerful enough so it pushes sulphur high up into the atmosphere, which mean it will kill some people. These are finding of well known atmospheric scientist Paul Jozef Crutzen (known for his research on Ozone depletion). He is the champion of the sulphur screen rockets solution to global warming. It is probably the most feasible solution to the problem. It is not as far fetched as forming clouds, or putting mirrors in space or chemical trees. The downside is acid rain, however he said it is a small price to pay, even prepared to lose a bit of the ozone.
On the scale of things ice ages and global warm has the potential to cause much more destruction than atom bombs or volcanoes.
_________________
Nobody's mom |
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 2174
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 0_equals_true wrote: | | ascan wrote: | | atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are implicated across geological time in causing massive environmental change. I've even read papers by Exxon geologist accepting this, although within the context of large-scale volcanic activity that occurs very infrequently. |
Volcanic activity might help out. Large scale eruptions can cause global dimming (most people don't know about global dimming), it is a phenomenon that can cancel out global warming. It has a cooling effect on the earth. It does need to be powerful enough so it pushes sulphur high up into the atmosphere, which mean it will kill some people. These are finding of well known atmospheric scientist Paul Jozef Crutzen (known for his research on Ozone depletion). He is the champion of the sulphur screen rockets solution to global warming. It is probably the most feasible solution to the problem. It is not as far fetched as forming clouds, or putting mirrors in space or chemical trees. The downside is acid rain, however he said it is a small price to pay, even prepared to lose a bit of the ozone.
On the scale of things ice ages and global warm has the potential to cause much more destruction than atom bombs or volcanoes. |
Sulphur dioxide washes out of the atmosphere relatively quickly, I recall reading, but you're right that it can cause significant cooling over a short period. You'd need to be continually producing massive quantities. It actually initially acts as a greenhouse gas causing warming, but then reacts with water forming an aerosol that causes the cooling you refer to. With regard to volcanism, if you get hold of a book called "When life nearly died", by a palaeontologist called Benton, there's a nice description of the likely effect of the Siberian Traps, one of the largest volcanic events known, although hundreds of million of years ago. I think it went something like a quick freeze first from the SO2 emissions causing cooling, then that SO2 along with fluorine and chlorine starts to wash-out killing all the vegetation with acid rain. The CO2 causes warming, and you get the positive feedback from dissociation of gas hydrates causing more warming. Literally hell on earth. It was at the time of one of the largest extinction events in the geological record. There were five of those extinctions, you know. Some say we're living through the sixth... I've no doubt we are. But I digress... |
|
| Back to top |
|
DenvrDave
Sea Gull
Joined: Sep 18, 2009
Age: 44
Posts: 225
Location: Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The link between currently observed global warming and human production of carbon dioxide is based on a statistical correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the timing of the industrial revolution, and mean surface temperatures on the Earth. In other words, the argument is based on a correlation between datasets and, therefore, is subject to a common fallacy: Correlation does not impy causation. By this same logic, one would have to conclude that skiing causes snow.
_________________
"Humans are gits, no matter what you believe." -mgran
|
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 2174
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DenvrDave wrote: | | In other words, the argument is based on a correlation between datasets and, therefore, is subject to a common fallacy: Correlation does not impy causation. By this same logic, one would have to conclude that skiing causes snow. |
No. The argument is also based on a measurable increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activity, along with calculations showing that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming. The fallacy is in believing this is all only about correlation. Any such correlation between temperature and CO2 only adds further weight to the argument. Even if that recent temperature correlation isn't caused by the CO2, the evidence still points to it being rather stupid to keep pumping out CO2 without considering the consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tensho
Supporting Member
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 474
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone ever seen a scientific program that describes in detail how CO2 affects global warming? I havent so if anyone has a recommendations of something for me to watch to prove global warming exist I will watch it.
I am not sure there is any because there seems to be a lack of proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DenvrDave
Sea Gull
Joined: Sep 18, 2009
Age: 44
Posts: 225
Location: Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ascan wrote: | | DenvrDave wrote: | | In other words, the argument is based on a correlation between datasets and, therefore, is subject to a common fallacy: Correlation does not impy causation. By this same logic, one would have to conclude that skiing causes snow. |
No. The argument is also based on a measurable increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activity, along with calculations showing that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming. The fallacy is in believing this is all only about correlation. Any such correlation between temperature and CO2 only adds further weight to the argument. |
Yes, it is correlation science and wishing it were anything else won't change the facts. This is not about what I believe, the conclusions are based on statistical correlations. Statistics and calculations don't "prove" anything.
| ascan wrote: | | Even if that recent temperature correlation isn't caused by the CO2, the evidence still points to it being rather stupid to keep pumping out CO2 without considering the consequences. |
I agree that there may be good reasons to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, especially from a health-risk perspective. But in this case, the correct conclusion (i.e., reduce CO2 emissions) was arrived at through poor reasoning (i.e., the theory that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming).
_________________
"Humans are gits, no matter what you believe." -mgran
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ambivalence
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 09, 2008
Posts: 612
Location: PEEuhLEE
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My solution involves global thermonuclear holocaust (as in indiscriminate launching at all major population centres, not some sissy US-Russia exchange), which neatly achieves global cooling (by putting a load of particulates into the atmosphere), reduction of human numbers to a more sustainable level, requiring civilisation to develop afresh without so much fossil fuel to burn, and just possibly saving a whole bunch of wildlife into the bargain. The only downside is the gigadeaths, but hey, I'm feeling misanthropic. 
_________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." |
|
| Back to top |
|
number5
Deinonychus
Joined: Jun 16, 2009
Posts: 360
Location: central NY
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a pretty good presentation on the basics:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-2.1.html
Saying that greenhouse gases are nothing more than correlation science is nonsense. It is a measured, studied, calculated, and proven fact. I suppose that by correlation reasoning you could also argue that the sun is not "proven" to be our primary source of heat. Utter nonsense. Beliefs are not measured and quantified via the scientific method and have no place in purely scientific analysis. Some people believe the Earth is only around 6000 years old in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary. I suppose we are all free to believe what we want, but personally I feel a responsibility to seek out truth, especially when my actions impact others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Inventor
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: New Orleans
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For a long time before 8,000 years ago, the Sahara was grassland, with lakes, trees, hippos and crocs.
Mesopotamia was a green land, and so was the Gobi.
Becoming desert was quick, and not human caused.
It had lasted through ice ages, periods warmer than today, and with no apparent cause turned to desert and stayed that way.
Scandinavia was still capped in ice, the Arctic covered in deep ice, and without this period of global warming Europe would have never developed. Just as the Sahara forms, Stonehenge is built. According to The Human Genome Project, it was built by a group that migrated from modern Turkey, when that dried out.
From 13,000 to 22,000 Europe had been covered in five kilometers of ice, the southern edge reaching from London to the south end of the Ural Mountains. This melts, seal level rises, and the Sahara forms, from 13,000 to 8,000 years ago. That is a lot of BTU's added in 5,000 years, but then it becomes stable.
Before 22,000 years ago it was hotter than today, sea level seven meters higher, people living along the sunny Arctic shore. The Arctic Ocean was ice free. A thousand years later there are five kilometers of ice, and a lot of BTU's of heat energy missing from the system.
Two thousand years ago it was hot in Scandinavia. The grave of a young woman has been found, she wore a halter top, and short shorts, and the shorts were made of strings, connected at waist and leg, 50% peek a boo. She alone was hot enough to explain the age. She knew it, she carried a fine dagger.
400 years later the Romans came to a standoff with the Picts, for they wanted to trade for the wines of Scotland. 500 years later the north coast of Scotland was covered in ice year round. The Vikings came south in mass, for their lands would no longer ripen crops.
500 years later, and 500 years ago, came a warm and stable time. The world population was counted in millions. Suddenly there were good crops every year, the population grew.
If a knowledge of the past is any indicater of the future, a warming trend will bring back Scandinavian girls in string short shorts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
judith26
Butterfly
Joined: Oct 26, 2009
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I cannot believe that. why would it be cooling, it just doesn't make sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Inventor
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: New Orleans
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The best guess I have heard is it is not us, nor volcanos, stars going supernova, it is our greater orbit, the Sun moves through patches of dust or gas that diffuse sunlight.
Both the cooling and the warming of the recent waves of ice took huge amounts of BTUs in or out of the system. It is not consistant. I can find no pattern.
32,000 years ago has three miles of ice, so does 22,000 years ago, but between, a period warmer than now, sea level seven meters higher, an ice free Arctic.
The little ice age 1100 to 1300 was between warm periods.
Before that, in 705, the Black Sea and the Nile froze. Before and after were warm.
1815, the year without summer, snow fell in all the summer months. Before and after were warm.
The hottest years in the last hundred, the 1930s. Warming causes decay, which releases Carbon Dioxide.
The snow that just fell on Colorado and the region was the most in a decade, early, and that caps the ground so later will cap it.
If there was a steady rising curve from the industrial revolution, if it followed sun spot cycles, the Earth orbit getting farther from the Sun, but it does not. Nor does the Sun change output.
Perhaps the crash of 29 shut down factories, which lead to clear skies, which caused the 1930s to be the hottest?
That is countered by the war production, and war, that followed, and the 50s were warmer than the 40s.
I think cutting down trees, but most of the world did not, and CO2 is worldwide. If it was caused by industry, it should be higher around industry, it is everywhere.
Nothing comes close to the heat of the Sun. Dust that caused 1% less, could cause an ice age, and clear could end it in the times we have seen. It would fit with not being a cycle, and it existed before people.
I am in favor of clean earth, air, water, Don't Litter, but the real problem calls for Captain Al Gore on the Space Ship Electrolux. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
