Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

It's getting hot in here....so lets...read this article?Follow

#102 Sep 25 2012 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Also "consensus" is not how science is done.
Not on a study by study basis...

That line alone pretty much disqualifies Gbaji from ever speaking again about science.

ACC is not science because a consensus says so. ACC is the consensus because of the hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific studies providing data points pointing to it. Which tends to make climate scientists say "Hey, look at all the data pointing to one thing."

I'll admit that very few, if any, of them write the blogs you cling to, though. Well, I guess some do.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Sep 25 2012 at 4:58 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,564 posts
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.

Except when the cost is individual and the outcome is shared.

Huh? ROI doesn't normally refer to returns gained by someone (or group of someone's) other than they who initially invested. So that's a particularly bizarre response.

Just my own pet peeve. There are situations where businesses can incur unnecessary expenses due to profiteering individuals or departments within the firm.
#104 Sep 25 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
So rmdcandie, which of these two points do you take issue with?

1. That there is a scientific consensus on the contributions of humans towards climate change? You don't even need a database subscription to show this. The international scientific community has affirmed as such.


The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Also "consensus" is not how science is done.

Quote:
2. That you are better qualified to have an opinion on the subject that the majority of the international scientific community?


See my second point above. The problem is that the political value of global warming is so great that any scientist who isn't on board with it gets labeled as a fringe quack and finds he can't gain employment. This then allows folks like you to dismiss their opinions as not in the mainstream and keeps the rest in line.


Is this how science is supposed to work? No. I don't need to know a **** thing about climate science specifically to look at the methodology used by the IPCC and determine that it's politically driven and anti-scientific. The scary thing is how many people who would otherwise be skeptical of exactly this sort of thing if it were a religious ideology pushing it fall right in line when it's an environmental ideology instead.


You're an idiot. I mean this from the most sincere, bottom, darkest depths of my beating heart. You're 100% grade A proof that Humanity is the first species on earth to circumvent the evolution process entirely.


Why? Evolution doesn't seek out the smartest, just the ones that die less than they breed,
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#105 Sep 25 2012 at 7:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Also "consensus" is not how science is done.


Not on a study by study basis, but it's fairly common in general. You get a few of the bigwigs in the field together, they write a review article summarizing some knowledge, it gets cited a bajillion times, then it's pretty much considered fact.


No. It's considered a current working theory, or model, for the area in question. Facts and data are wholly different than theories and models. Amazing how often people mix them up though.

Quote:
Do people question things that are considered 'fact' afterwards?


But in this case, anyone who does is called the kinds of names being tossed my way in this thread. All because I disagree with the argument that it's "settled science". Surely you can see how this is problematic. I hope you don't think that this forum is the only place where that sort of attack goes on.

Quote:
Of course, happens all the time. There are always exceptions and things that were overlooked, times move on and theories change based on new data. The only difference between other fields and climate science is every lawn chair scientist and politician feels they have a stake in the process here. Every bump, question, contradiction and exception is over-analyzed ad nauseum.


No. The difference is that those other fields do not have an international organization created specifically to push forward an agenda based on the absolute assumption that a given conclusion within that field is true, and which primarily serves the function of pressuring governments into compliance and to discredit any scientist who dares to disagree with that assumed conclusion. The fact that you refer to anyone who questions their conclusions as "lawn chair scientists" speaks volumes about how this has affected your own perception of the issue.


Also, I'd like to point out that given the monumental costs associated with the political agenda at question, we all have a stake in this. The idea that someone should be dismissed because they "feel they have a stake" is pretty ridiculous. No matter which side you come down on and pretty much every position in between, you have stake. The question you should be asking yourself is why it even enters your mind that someone shouldn't have a say (or a stake) in this at all.

Quote:
Frankly, I don't see how they ever get anything done with all that extra attention.


Good. When "getting anything done" means implementation of policies that have a lot more to do with damaging the US economy than with actually doing anything about the problem, then we should put the brakes on. Hard.


Even if one accepts fully the conclusions regarding global warming, what I honestly can't get is the complete disconnect between that and the proposed "solutions" being pushed. I've made this point in several past threads on global warming, and no one ever seems to have an answer. If the problem is global production of some set of pollutants, then any solution also should be global and should take into account total production of that set of pollutants. But what we're seeing instead is piecemeal policies, strongly pushed in some developed nations (like the US), not so much in others (like China), and not at all in the developing world. I long ago presented the math that shows that implementation of something like the Kyoto Accords (which were aimed at pollution in general and not ACC specifically), if implemented in the US, would actually significantly increase total global production of the various pollutants involved. If you want, I can reproduce said logic. It's not hard.


The same applies to this as well. While many people us silly stats like "pollution per capita" or "total pollution", the real number to use is "pollution per unit of production". This tells us how many tons of substance X is introduced into the environment while producing some number of specific industrial products. It's critically important to this debate because the US already has some of (if not the) highest pollution standards in the world. Assuming that global demand for some product doesn't change, then the most likely result of a mandate to reduce US emissions of some pollutant is for the industrial activity which produces it to be moved off shore. This will always result in a net global increase in the total amount of pollution created relative to total industrial output. Always.



And at the end of the day, it's not really the science people are bothered by, but the political agenda being pushed based on that science. You can sit there and declare that the earth is warming all day long if you want. But the second you insist that we should pass a law (in the US) mandating a 10% reduction in total CO2 generation from industrial activity, I'm going to take a lot closer look both at what you are claiming about ACC *and* whether what you're proposing we do makes any sense. The ridiculous thing about this is that it's quite apparent when one looks at the proposals that just as with the Kyoto Accords, they have nothing to do with reducing global pollution (in fact they would almost certainly increase them), but rather seem to be about redistributing industrial productivity from developed nations to non-developed or developing nations.


While this doesn't discount whether or not global warming is real and/or to what degree it's a threat we need to deal with, it does suggest that those making the proposals don't really care about global warming except to the degree that it allows them to go forward with an agenda that they failed to get passed 20 years ago. They're just using global warming and the increased concern it brings as a tool to do so. And that really ought to be the first concern of anyone who really thinks global warming is a serious problem. Because if you fall into that group, you should know that what they're telling you must be done to "save the planet" not only wont, but will in all likelihood make the problem worse.


Of course, those pushing the agenda most likely don't think global warming will have those catastrophic effects at all. But they know that if you believe it, you'll let them get the economic agenda they want. And when nothing bad happens, they can claim that it happened because of what they did. You'd think that more people would figure this out. I mean, if your neighbor keeps trying to get you to buy his old boat, and you refuse, then he tells you that there's a flood coming, you might be really suspicious about his claim. Doubly so when the boat leaks and wont save you from a flood if one even comes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#106 Sep 25 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.

Except when the cost is individual and the outcome is shared.

Huh? ROI doesn't normally refer to returns gained by someone (or group of someone's) other than they who initially invested. So that's a particularly bizarre response.

Just my own pet peeve. There are situations where businesses can incur unnecessary expenses due to profiteering individuals or departments within the firm.


Sure. But I'm not sure what this has to do with adoption of green initiatives which have a positive ROI. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that when the point that some green initiatives have a positive ROI for the companies that implement them was made, we weren't meant to assume cases where the company actually lost money, but the executive whose cousin owns the "green energy device" company made a ton of money.

Not unless we're just completely changing the meaning of ROI. And even then, those cases would not make a great case for the profitability of implementing green initiatives (which I'll also assume was the purpose of said point in the first place).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Sep 25 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
But in this case, anyone who does is called the kinds of names being tossed my way in this thread. All because I disagree with the argument that it's "settled science".

Well, that and the fact that you argue that it's not "settled science" about as effectively as a raccoon. Each time you open your mouth on the topic, you just demonstrate how over your head you are.

But I hope the view from up on that cross is a great one.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#108 Sep 25 2012 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,421 posts
gbaji wrote:
No. It's considered a current working theory, or model, for the area in question.
Gravity is a theory, too. So why don't you go jump off a bridge?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#109 Sep 25 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,564 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But I'm not sure what this has to do with adoption of green initiatives which have a positive ROI.

Many green initiatives have diffused benefits. A cleaner river could increase revenue for fishing, raft rental, and various other outdoor recreational businesses, but even if the profit increases together outweigh the cost of creating that cleaner river, a large part of the benefit isn't received the by say the meat processing plant upstream who'd have to buy a new waste disposal system.

The venture is profitable for the system, but it's not profitable for the individual. Perpetrating such a venture requires collusion either willful or forced, i.e. government.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 10:16pm by Allegory
#110 Sep 25 2012 at 10:37 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Allegory wrote:
So rmdcandie, which of these two points do you take issue with?

1. That there is a scientific consensus on the contributions of humans towards climate change? You don't even need a database subscription to show this. The international scientific community has affirmed as such.

2. That you are better qualified to have an opinion on the subject that the majority of the international scientific community? If this is where you take issue, then I can't help you, and no one can help you. If you truly believe you are in greater capacity to have an opinion on this than the entirety of experts in thee field, then I hope gbaji brings you a nice housewarming present because you've clearly moved into the same reality he's in.



http://climateconferences.heartland.org/fred-singer-iccc7/
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/willie-soon-iccc7/
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/tom-segalstad-iccc7/

Guess we follow different scientific rings. CO2 is scary ****

(also doesn't look like entirety of the experts agree humans are causing global warming)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#111 Sep 25 2012 at 10:45 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,564 posts
So, you do understand you linked to a political think tank, and you do understand how that differs from an international scientific panel supported by the national scientific communities of most first and second world countries?

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 11:45pm by Allegory
#112 Sep 25 2012 at 10:45 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh... Heartland.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Sep 25 2012 at 10:59 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Allegory wrote:
So, you do understand you linked to a political think tank, and you do understand how that differs from an international scientific panel supported by the national scientific communities of most first and second world countries?

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 11:45pm by Allegory


uhoh someone didn't watch the videos before they posted!

The three scientists and their discussions are actually against the ICCC's "mandate" on Climate Control. They all go in depth in disputing some of the key numbers that the ICCC uses.

Go watch the vidoes.


(also it must be hard to try and chastise someone for their sources being big government, when one of yours has the signatures of the G8 nations representatives tacked on to the end.)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#114 Sep 25 2012 at 11:00 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Heh... Heartland.


Yes we know you don't like anything that doesn't agree with you. Id say grow up but you would probably sick Flea on me.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#115 Sep 25 2012 at 11:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Right. The only issue with using a right wing think tank funded by oil companies for your climate science needs is that they might not agree with me. Well, I guess we're done here.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#116 Sep 25 2012 at 11:14 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Right. The only issue with using a right wing think tank funded by oil companies for your climate science needs is that they might not agree with me. Well, I guess we're done here.


Awww someone else didn't watch the videos either. Good ol Joph poo poos anything he can't say yes too. Hey Joph what can you tell me about CO2? The scary number that the ICCC has shoved down your throat for 10 years? It makes up less than 1 % of the atmosphere, less than half of produced CO2 actually makes it to the atmosphere, and it disipates in a short amount of time.

Or I guess I should say it is consumed and turned to Oxygen in a short amount of time.

(guess I should mention that CO2 actually results in a cooling effect and not a heating effect)

But ya, right wing and all that. Science is being bought by Conservatives!.


Did you remember your tin foil hat today?




Edited, Sep 26th 2012 1:17am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#117 Sep 25 2012 at 11:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also, I suspect you're confusing the IPCC and the ICCC. One is a multinational scientific body designed to act as a clearinghouse for research and collaborative study, the other is a gathering hosted by Heartland for the purpose of **** about the former.

Watching you throw a temper tantrum when you don't even know which organizations you're talking about is pretty funny though.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 12:23am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#118 Sep 25 2012 at 11:27 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
What is your point?

2 groups of people have differing opinions. I happen to think the guys you don't like have more realistic positions. You think the guys I like are just paid to spit sh*t.

Meanwhile both sides are using reputable scientists, both have support in the greater scientific community and they both lust after the same end, why is our planet heating up so quickly.

Unfortunately your guys just keep talking about CO2 and how humans have damned us all (or ourselves I guess). CO2 is a grasp at best, it was 3 degrees warmer 400,000 years ago with less CO2 than today. Of course I am sure you poo poo the Volstok Ice samplings too.

Like ive said several times, there is no proof that humans have done anything, there is hypothetical opinion both for it and against it. But I don't see any of the Alarmists backing up there claims with other potential possibilities, Such as the Sun, or Oceans. The Alarmists blame us it is our fault, for helping to contribute..along with wildfires, forest fires, volcanoes (both under sea and over sea), every oxygen breathing organism on the planet. But ya its humans yo!

(but ya I did mean to address the UN's lap dog commission)

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 1:31am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#119 Sep 25 2012 at 11:38 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503161435.htm

You should hate plants to. The evil buggers are sweating to little.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 1:39am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#120 Sep 25 2012 at 11:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Right. Well, there's about five or six years worth of global warming threads here you can search through if you want to see studies and all that. Otherwise, keep having fun.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#121 Sep 26 2012 at 12:01 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,563 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503161435.htm

You should hate plants to. The evil buggers are sweating to little.


Uh, that article doesn't support your position.



Edited, Sep 26th 2012 1:04am by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#122 Sep 26 2012 at 2:24 AM Rating: Excellent
rdmcandie wrote:
(guess I should mention that CO2 actually results in a cooling effect and not a heating effect)
Which explains why Venus is a frozen planet, amirite, guys?


SCIENCE!
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#123 Sep 26 2012 at 6:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,183 posts
trickybeck wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503161435.htm

You should hate plants to. The evil buggers are sweating to little.


Uh, that article doesn't support your position.



Edited, Sep 26th 2012 1:04am by trickybeck


From the linked article:

Quote:
Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings. The plants absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis through the same pores (called stomata). But when carbon dioxide levels are high, the leaf pores shrink. This causes less water to be released, diminishing the tree's cooling power.


So the cause is higher than normal CO2 levels. The effect is the diminishing of the cooling we get at normal CO2 levels. Saying plants are to blame is a bit, well, wrong.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#124 Sep 26 2012 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trees cause pollution!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#125 Sep 26 2012 at 7:18 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Right. Well, there's about five or six years worth of global warming threads here you can search through if you want to see studies and all that. Otherwise, keep having fun.


There has been 5 or 6 years of studies that claim the opposite, again what is your point.

trickybeck wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503161435.htm

You should hate plants to. The evil buggers are sweating to little.


Uh, that article doesn't support your position.



[/sm][/i]


It was a joke akin to saying humans are the cause of global warming, I thought it was pretty funny, guess not.


Friar Bijou wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
(guess I should mention that CO2 actually results in a cooling effect and not a heating effect)
Which explains why Venus is a frozen planet, amirite, guys?


SCIENCE!


Quote:
Global Atmospheric Cooling due to Increase in CO2 Content
Increase in CO2 content leads to global cooling of atmosphere. This paradoxical, at first
sight, conclusion can be inferred from the adiabatic theory of heat transfer. To compare
the temperature characteristics of a planet at various compositions of its atmosphere, one
can use Eq. (11).
If one assumes that the existing nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere of Earth is replaced
entirely by an imaginary carbon dioxide atmosphere with the same pressure of 1 atm
and adiabatic exponent ˛ D 0:1428, then the value of b
˛ D 1:597
0:1428 D 1:069 and the
near-surface temperature would decline to 281.6 K. Thus, the atmospheric temperature
would decreases by 6.4
ı
C, instead of increasing according to the traditional theory.
Constructing the distributions of temperature in the carbon dioxide atmosphere, one
should take into consideration the fact that for the same pressure the corresponding
elevation above sea level is lower than that for the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere of
Earth: h.CO2/ D h.N2 C O2/  29=44, where h is the elevation, and 29 and 44 are
the molecular weights of nitrogen–oxygen and carbon dioxide atmospheres, respectively.
Such temperature distributions are shown in Figure 1. In this figure, the graph of temperature distribution for the carbon dioxide troposphere lies below the graph of distribution
for the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere. Thus, the near-surface temperature for the carbon
dioxide atmosphere is 6.4
ı
C lower than that for the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere and not
considerably higher as some scientists continue to believe. Therefore, the accumulation
of carbon dioxide in great amounts in atmosphere should lead only to the cooling of
climate, whereas insignificant changes in the partial pressure of CO2 (few hundreds of
ppm) practically would not influence the average temperature of atmosphere and the
Earth’s surface.
Similarly, if one assumes that the existing carbon dioxide atmosphere of Venus is
entirely replaced by the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere at the same pressure of 90.9 atm,
then its surface temperature would increase from 735 to 796 K. Thus, increasing the
saturation of atmosphere with carbon dioxide (despite its radiation absorbing capacity),
with all other conditions being equal, results in a decrease and not an increase of
the greenhouse effect and a decrease in average temperature of planet’s atmosphere.


As for Venus. its included in the last paragraph.




http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CoolingOfAtmosphere.pdf

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 9:20am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#126 Sep 26 2012 at 7:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
There has been 5 or 6 years of studies that claim the opposite, again what is your point.

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#127 Sep 26 2012 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,668 posts
rdmcandie wrote:

Quote:
Global Atmospheric Cooling due to Increase in CO2 Content
Increase in CO2 content leads to global cooling of atmosphere. This paradoxical, at first
sight, conclusion can be inferred from the adiabatic theory of heat transfer. To compare
the temperature characteristics of a planet at various compositions of its atmosphere, one
can use Eq. (11).
If one assumes that the existing nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere of Earth is replaced
entirely by an imaginary carbon dioxide atmosphere with the same pressure of 1 atm
and adiabatic exponent ˛ D 0:1428, then the value of b
˛ D 1:597
0:1428 D 1:069 and the
near-surface temperature would decline to 281.6 K. Thus, the atmospheric temperature
would decreases by 6.4
ı
C, instead of increasing according to the traditional theory.
Constructing the distributions of temperature in the carbon dioxide atmosphere, one
should take into consideration the fact that for the same pressure the corresponding
elevation above sea level is lower than that for the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere of
Earth: h.CO2/ D h.N2 C O2/  29=44, where h is the elevation, and 29 and 44 are
the molecular weights of nitrogen–oxygen and carbon dioxide atmospheres, respectively.
Such temperature distributions are shown in Figure 1. In this figure, the graph of temperature distribution for the carbon dioxide troposphere lies below the graph of distribution
for the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere. Thus, the near-surface temperature for the carbon
dioxide atmosphere is 6.4
ı
C lower than that for the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere and not
considerably higher as some scientists continue to believe. Therefore, the accumulation
of carbon dioxide in great amounts in atmosphere should lead only to the cooling of
climate, whereas insignificant changes in the partial pressure of CO2 (few hundreds of
ppm) practically would not influence the average temperature of atmosphere and the
Earth’s surface.
Similarly, if one assumes that the existing carbon dioxide atmosphere of Venus is
entirely replaced by the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere at the same pressure of 90.9 atm,
then its surface temperature would increase from 735 to 796 K. Thus, increasing the
saturation of atmosphere with carbon dioxide (despite its radiation absorbing capacity),
with all other conditions being equal, results in a decrease and not an increase of
the greenhouse effect and a decrease in average temperature of planet’s atmosphere.


As for Venus. its included in the last paragraph.




http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CoolingOfAtmosphere.pdf
So you're in agreement that CO2 emissions are changing our atmosphere?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#128 Sep 26 2012 at 7:24 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
There has been 5 or 6 years of studies that claim the opposite, again what is your point.

Smiley: laugh


I am beginning to think you don't know what my issue is.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#129 Sep 26 2012 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
******
43,421 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Right. The only issue with using a right wing think tank funded by oil companies for your climate science needs is that they might not agree with me.
They'd never have an agenda.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#130 Sep 26 2012 at 7:25 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Elinda wrote:

So you're in agreement that CO2 emissions are changing our atmosphere?


Yes it is cooling our atmosphere.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 9:25am by rdmcandie
#131 Sep 26 2012 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
I am beginning to think you don't know what my issue is.

It's entirely possible.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#132 Sep 26 2012 at 7:59 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
I am beginning to think you don't know what my issue is.

It's entirely possible.


Well I find the human element to be quite over exaggerated, probably the worst thing humans have done to the heating/cooling of the planet is deforestation. CO2 isn't the reason but it sure makes a good sound byte when you want to add in CO2 caps, or Auto Emissions restrictions.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#133 Sep 26 2012 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ah, well, now that I understand you: Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Sep 26 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Samira wrote:

Quote:
Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings. The plants absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis through the same pores (called stomata). But when carbon dioxide levels are high, the leaf pores shrink. This causes less water to be released, diminishing the tree's cooling power.


So the cause is higher than normal CO2 levels. The effect is the diminishing of the cooling we get at normal CO2 levels. Saying plants are to blame is a bit, well, wrong.


It's a moot point anyway. The cooling effect is localized. It's like saying air conditioners can cool the planet. Air conditioners don't remove heat from the system they just move it around. In fact, they generate heat. In the case of plants all they're really doing is taking heat from the plant, transferring it to the water and letting it evaporate and float off somewhere else with said heat.

The only way to remove heat from the earth is to radiate it out into space in various forms of radiation. Greenhouse gasses slow that process like a blanket. There is currently no feasible way to cool the earth all we have right now is prevention.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 10:20am by Yodabunny
#135 Sep 26 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
I think candie needs to believe humans have nothing to do with it because somehow they'll take his pot away from him. Or something.

god, please tell me you're stoned
#136 Sep 26 2012 at 8:46 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,888 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I think candie needs to believe humans have nothing to do with it because somehow they'll take his pot away from him. Or something.

god, please tell me you're stoned

Hell, even I've never been *that* stoned.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#137 Sep 26 2012 at 8:47 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I think candie needs to believe humans have nothing to do with it because somehow they'll take his pot away from him. Or something.

god, please tell me you're stoned


Nope not stoned. Just waiting for the evidence to actually back up the claims. As it is, there is no empirical proof that humans are the cause of climate change, CO2 is not causing Global Warming, which means us nasty emitters are not causing it either. The Earth has actually been slowly cooling over the past decade. The IPCC predictions are not remotely close (based on their 2007 models they have more coming in 2013) in some cases their data is out .2-.4 degrees. Maybe we are the cause of Global cooling, because CO2 is actually responsible for cooling atmospheric temperatures, which eventually play on surface temperatures.

But ya, until they can say without doubt that it is humans ill continue to disagree that we are the cause of the warming. But in order to do that they will have to first disprove things such as Oceanic Heating, The Sun warming up (which has already been confirmed so hard to disprove).

I don't buy into the fact that we are causing global warming, at least not in the popular sense. The worst thing we do to our climate is deforestation, which rarely gets a side bar notation in the Alarmists handbooks.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#138 Sep 26 2012 at 8:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Y
rdmcandie wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
I am beginning to think you don't know what my issue is.

It's entirely possible.


Well I find the human element to be quite over exaggerated, probably the worst thing humans have done to the heating/cooling of the planet is deforestation. CO2 isn't the reason but it sure makes a good sound byte when you want to add in CO2 caps, or Auto Emissions restrictions.


You do realize that deforestation affects the CO2 cycle by reducing the outtake from the system, right? It doesnt particularly matter for this particular point whether you have more trees or lowered emmissions, but the net change in the system is what affects atmospheric heat exchange.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#139 Sep 26 2012 at 8:49 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,888 posts
Well, which do you want? Evidence, or proof? Coz there's a metric shit-ton of the former.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#140 Sep 26 2012 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Samira wrote:

Quote:
Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings. The plants absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis through the same pores (called stomata). But when carbon dioxide levels are high, the leaf pores shrink. This causes less water to be released, diminishing the tree's cooling power.


So the cause is higher than normal CO2 levels. The effect is the diminishing of the cooling we get at normal CO2 levels. Saying plants are to blame is a bit, well, wrong.


It's a moot point anyway. The cooling effect is localized. It's like saying air conditioners can cool the planet. Air conditioners don't remove heat from the system they just move it around. In fact, they generate heat. In the case of plants all they're really doing is taking heat from the plant, transferring it to the water and letting it evaporate and float off somewhere else with said heat.

The only way to remove heat from the earth is to radiate it out into space in various forms of radiation. Greenhouse gasses slow that process like a blanket. There is currently no feasible way to cool the earth all we have right now is prevention.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 10:20am by Yodabunny


Well, sequestering or deflecting input energy works. Storing solar energy in a non heat form can change atmospheric variables to an extent where they affect the heat venting rate. Solar shades can directly limit the heat input, but are generally undesirable for reasons I won't get into here.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#141 Sep 26 2012 at 9:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Well, sequestering or deflecting input energy works. Storing solar energy in a non heat form can change atmospheric variables to an extent where they affect the heat venting rate. Solar shades can directly limit the heat input, but are generally undesirable for reasons I won't get into here.


Key word is feasible. Sequestering isn't even close to an option, same with solar shades. Deflection could be accomplished by lacing the atmosphere with reflective particles but who here likes breathing silver?
#142 Sep 26 2012 at 9:37 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Debalic wrote:
Well, which do you want? Evidence, or proof? Coz there's a metric shit-ton of the former.


I want both because I want to see how they derived at the conclusion.

As of today the theory is such.

Over the last 250 years the planet had been heating up more rapidly than we have seen in historical records. The only change we have observed is the Industrial Revolution. So it must be humans burning fossil fuels!

Meanwhile the Sun has had several periods of heating. If the Sun gets hotter it would makes sense that we would as well. I mean its not like humans are spewing CO2 into the Martian atmosphere, yet it has been gradually warming up just like us!. The best part, we know the sun has been heating up over the last decade or so, and our friendly Odyssey Satelite on Mars has observed the great CO2 Ice Cap diminish since 2002.

But then again it could be the wobbles of the planets axis that occur every 20,000 years or so. Which times just about right with the expected mini Ice Age due in the next 10-20 years. It has been about 20,000 years since our last mini Ice Age, and we are now about half way through our interglacial period according to historical data.

Of course, those are just crack pot theories. Obviously 250 years worth of burning fossil fuels is the reason. I mean heck its not like burning trees for industry for the previous 25,000 years of our existence didn't release CO2. (which would mean something is CO2 was actually contributing to the heating of the planet anyway.)

Of course in 2009 the US and UK governments decided that we aren't privy to certain tid bits of information. Not to mention detailing how the hockey stick graph was cooked up. According to 50% of their source information heating actually stalled around 1960....yet somehow that data appears to be ignored. (Climategate look it up).


____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#143 Sep 26 2012 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,599 posts
gbaji wrote:
No. It's considered a current working theory, or model, for the area in question. Facts and data are wholly different than theories and models. Amazing how often people mix them up though.


Good lord, why do you think I used terms like pretty much and put 'fact' in quotations? Smiley: tongue

There's a point it doesn't matter from a practical point of view. World is round (or a flattened sphere, whatever...), Imatinib inhibits tyrosine kinase activity causing apoptosis, world is slowly warming...

gbaji wrote:
But in this case, anyone who does is called the kinds of names being tossed my way in this thread. All because I disagree with the argument that it's "settled science". Surely you can see how this is problematic. I hope you don't think that this forum is the only place where that sort of attack goes on.


Viewing with skepticism is fine, but there's a point the field moves on. As problematic as it can be it's necessary for the field to advance. There's a lot of things in my own field that we've moved on from before I considered them 'settled science.' Some of these things got settled later on.

There's always a place for 2nd tier scientists, newly minted PhD's and the like, in refining and ironing out the wrinkles in old theories. Something may turn out to be wrong. A theory that people accept as universal, may only be true in a limited scope, etc. etc. The best labs won't take the time to iron out the wrinkles in their own theories, a lot of times there isn't as much money in it. You don't stay ahead of the field by doing those kinds of things.

Realistically though, once a working theory (there I used your words) has been established it takes a lot of contradictory science to overturn it. It takes a lot more work on convince a reviewer. The science has to be better than other studies. Many times the best you get out of this is a publication in a backwater journal and funding difficulties. But hey, I'm guessing you already knew that, it's not unique to climate science by any means, and has more to do with human nature IMO.

gbaji wrote:
No. The difference is that those other fields do not have an international organization created specifically to push forward an agenda based on the absolute assumption that a given conclusion within that field is true, and which primarily serves the function of pressuring governments into compliance and to discredit any scientist who dares to disagree with that assumed conclusion. The fact that you refer to anyone who questions their conclusions as "lawn chair scientists" speaks volumes about how this has affected your own perception of the issue.


Right, because I don't have to deal with bodies like the NIH or anything? Certainly they don't have an agenda... Smiley: rolleyes

"Lawn chair scientists" refers to people like you and me sitting here debating this topic. Neither of us are climate scientists, hence the term. I don't recall the last time a couple of people sat around on a forum discussing whether using MSMS ion intensities to improve the quantitative aspect of spectral count values was valid or not. If they did, would someone who published a paper on the topic take them seriously? Probably not.

gbaji wrote:
The question you should be asking yourself is why it even enters your mind that someone shouldn't have a say (or a stake) in this at all.


Fine, but there still needs to be a point where 'non-experts' such as ourselves, politicians, etc. come in second to people who are actually doing the work in the field.

gbaji wrote:
]Good. When "getting anything done" means implementation of policies that have a lot more to do with damaging the US economy than with actually doing anything about the problem, then we should put the brakes on. Hard.


The scientists, not the politicians who use their theories to further their own agendas. I don't like the way these things get a knee-jerk reaction from the liberal left either, it can be just as damaging as an entrenched skeptic with their head in the sand.

gbaji wrote:
stuff

stuff

stuff

And at the end of the day, it's not really the science people are bothered by, but the political agenda being pushed based on that science.

more stuff

dear god more stuff? Smiley: eek

okay I'm done reading this...


I concur, it bothers me too. Which is partly where my stance with rdm earlier came in. Well that and my opinion the 'global warming' crowd doesn't have the support needed for drastic change, just like the 'anti-abortion' crowd is a long way from outlawing the procedure.

Lets say we're projecting a 1.5 - 4 degree increase temperature for the U.S. over the next 100 years or so. What does that mean, what are the consequences, and how to we address the issues that's going to cause? Let the scientists play with their theories, and give the rest of us something concrete to work with.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 8:42am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#144 Sep 26 2012 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,668 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Elinda wrote:

So you're in agreement that CO2 emissions are changing our atmosphere?


Yes it is cooling our atmosphere.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 9:25am by rdmcandie
What makes this article about CO2 having an over-all cooling effect more convincing than all about CO2 warming the atmosphere? In general the green house effect is not really disputed.

Are there any dire consequences to atmospheric cooling?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#145 Sep 26 2012 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
I want both because I want to see how they derived at the conclusion.

Well, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of studies out there so you can't complain for lack of data.

Quote:
(Climategate look it up).

Ok

Also, ok.


Edited, Sep 26th 2012 10:47am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Sep 26 2012 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
******
43,421 posts
Jophiel wrote:
so you can't complain
Ha.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#147 Sep 26 2012 at 10:00 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
I want both because I want to see how they derived at the conclusion.

Well, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of studies out there so you can't complain for lack of data.

Quote:
(Climategate look it up).

Ok

Also, ok.


Edited, Sep 26th 2012 10:47am by Jophiel


Data is not Fact. Data can lead to fact, but it is not fact. So once again the lack of proof makes the evidence irrelevant. Or in other words, the Evidence does not support the theory.

Also to your links again whats your point? The hockey stick graph has already been phased out, they have a new graph with new parameters. Like adding in the Medival Warm Period and the Little Ice Age which were not present on the initial Its humans get them! Graph. (ironically enough the "new" hockey stick graph shows us merely returning to pre mini ice age temperatures.)


____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#148 Sep 26 2012 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
Data is not Fact. Data can lead to fact, but it is not fact.

For someone who keeps stomping his feet and demanding things, you're incredibly unwilling to show any initiative. Which doesn't bother me; it's pretty much the answer why I'm not wasting my time trying to educate you so that's a win for me, I guess.

Quote:
Also to your links again whats your point?

To laugh at you for pulling out "OMG Climategate! Look it up!" as a talking point. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149 Sep 26 2012 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,564 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Data is not Fact. Data can lead to fact, but it is not fact.

No, it's literally fact.

da·ta
   [dey-tuh, dat-uh, dah-tuh]
noun
1.
a plural of datum.
2.
(used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items of information: These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered by terminal for immediate processing by the computer.
3.
(used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information
#150 Sep 26 2012 at 10:20 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Elinda wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Elinda wrote:

So you're in agreement that CO2 emissions are changing our atmosphere?


Yes it is cooling our atmosphere.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 9:25am by rdmcandie
What makes this article about CO2 having an over-all cooling effect more convincing than all about CO2 warming the atmosphere? In general the green house effect is not really disputed.

Are there any dire consequences to atmospheric cooling?



Well I guess you could call an Ice Age a negative effect. As the Atmosphere cools the surface temps eventually cool as well. Glaciers will slowly return and parts of oceans might freeze over. The freezing of oceans and lakes would result in a reduction to CO2 production, which means after a few thousand years CO2 levels will be to low to effectively keep the planet cool. Then the atmospheric temperature begins to rise, and eventually the surface temperature rises, and presto back to good ol temperate Earth for another 20,000 years or so.

Its the natural cycle, that is if you assume that any of our climate research is actually reliable. It has happened many times in the 400,000 years of data we have from the Volstok Ice Cores. When you view the temperature changes with CO2 you see the trend, as the planet begins warming CO2 is at a low, when it begins cooling CO2 is at a high.

If anything our continued contribution to CO2 will only speed up the process, which is actually kind of evidenced in the history of Ice Ages over the last 400,000 years. Heck each preceding Ice age had similar CO2 as we have today, yet had higher temperatures associated with them. Id feel safer saying humans are speeding up cooling, as opposed to speeding up heating.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#151 Sep 26 2012 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,599 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Well, which do you want? Evidence, or proof? Coz there's a metric shit-ton of the former.


I want both because I want to see how they derived at the conclusion.


I'm feeling generous, and not wanting to hone my non-existant programming skills atm.

Here's a list of citations from the Historical Overview portion of the IPCC's report. If nothing else by reading those papers you should have a general idea of why they came to the conclusions they did.

Here's their summary outline if you don't have that kind of time.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 9:28am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 29 All times are in CDT
Aethien, lolgaxe, Samira, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (25)