Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

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

#152 Sep 26 2012 at 10:27 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.


Im not stamping my feet, I know how to use Google, if I cared to read yet another piece of drivel that blames humanity for global warming based on CO2 I would google it. The fact is, there is no evidence that supports that claim. CO2 does not cause heating. It causes Cooling. Why waste my time reading something that is inherently false before it was even written.

Its not a talking point, it was to reference my blurb about the US and UK governments saying we aren't worthy of all the data, and to point out the flaws in the legendary hockey stick graph, which has now been amended due to backlash from the scientific community for ignoring key time periods of heating an cooling, instead of saying well for 900 years it was pretty well the same, then whammo suddenly the earth went crazy and heated up!.


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

#153 Sep 26 2012 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,601 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
The fact is, there is no evidence that supports that claim. CO2 does not cause heating. It causes Cooling. Why waste my time reading something that is inherently false before it was even written.


This guy apparently stumbled on it way back in 1896...
Also interesting to note it's not the CO2, but specifically it's interaction with water and the effects of resulting carbonic acid. (He goes on a lot about different humidity levels in the middle of the paper.) Smiley: rolleyes

On a side note, it is really fascinating reading something from that long ago.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 10:19am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#154 Sep 26 2012 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Neither project is small, nor cheap, but both are technically feasible.

One mostly involves creating more plant coverage, the other blocking a portion of light. Heck, even the Heartland" Institute " has looked into it as a solution to global warming http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2006/08/01/physicist-proposes-new-solution-global-warming
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#155 Sep 26 2012 at 10:59 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
The fact is, there is no evidence that supports that claim. CO2 does not cause heating. It causes Cooling. Why waste my time reading something that is inherently false before it was even written.


This guy apparently stumbled on it way back in 1896...
Also interesting to note it's not the CO2, but specifically it's interaction with water and the effects of resulting carbonic acid. (He goes on a lot about different humidity levels in the middle of the paper.)

On a side note, it is really fascinating reading something from that long ago.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 9:58am by someproteinguy


That was a good read, antiquated but good.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#156 Sep 26 2012 at 11:03 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Neither project is small, nor cheap, but both are technically feasible.

One mostly involves creating more plant coverage, the other blocking a portion of light. Heck, even the Heartland" Institute " has looked into it as a solution to global warming http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2006/08/01/physicist-proposes-new-solution-global-warming


Nope. We can look at them and say "this is how we could do it" but as a society it's not feasible to put those solutions into practice. We could technically colonize mars. We have the technology to make a self sustaining colony on Mars. People would have short life expectancies etc, but we can do it. Won't happen though.

The plant coverage thing is prevention, it cleans up the air. You would have to redesign cities to make it work effectively, but it would definitely help. Again though, won't happen.

This stuff isn't just expensive it's obscenely expensive, I don't think most people can rationalize just how expensive this stuff is. Prevention is the only feasible solution.
#157 Sep 26 2012 at 11:09 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
I don't know how well blocking the sun or limiting the sun would work. I mean that is a pretty serious band-aid for a situation that has happened countless times in this planets history. Would be pretty funny though to get it all set up only to realize it was just natural heating and then we freeze ourselves, destroy our own food, and eliminate most living stuff on the planet.

Although I guess then you could say humans had a hand in wrecking the climate after all.

I don't think its wise to try and limit the source of all life on this planet. Just me though.

I say ride it out, the planet is a self correcting juggernaut, it has done it before it will do it again, and if it decides that we no longer fit into the puzzle, then we won't. We going to be extinct eventually anyway, good ol evolution will see to that. (granted we will probably nuke ourselves to pieces long before then.)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#158 Sep 26 2012 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Neither project is small, nor cheap, but both are technically feasible.

One mostly involves creating more plant coverage, the other blocking a portion of light. Heck, even the Heartland" Institute " has looked into it as a solution to global warming http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2006/08/01/physicist-proposes-new-solution-global-warming


Nope. We can look at them and say "this is how we could do it" but as a society it's not feasible to put those solutions into practice. We could technically colonize mars. We have the technology to make a self sustaining colony on Mars. People would have short life expectancies etc, but we can do it. Won't happen though.

The plant coverage thing is prevention, it cleans up the air. You would have to redesign cities to make it work effectively, but it would definitely help. Again though, won't happen.

This stuff isn't just expensive it's obscenely expensive, I don't think most people can rationalize just how expensive this stuff is. Prevention is the only feasible solution.


NASA engineers quoted ~20 billion for a 0.5% filter based on 2004 launch and engr costs. That's expensive, but not that expensive.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#159 Sep 26 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
I
rdmcandie wrote:
I don't know how well blocking the sun or limiting the sun would work. I mean that is a pretty serious band-aid for a situation that has happened countless times in this planets history. Would be pretty funny though to get it all set up only to realize it was just natural heating and then we freeze ourselves, destroy our own food, and eliminate most living stuff on the planet.

Although I guess then you could say humans had a hand in wrecking the climate after all.

I don't think its wise to try and limit the source of all life on this planet. Just me though.

I say ride it out, the planet is a self correcting juggernaut, it has done it before it will do it again, and if it decides that we no longer fit into the puzzle, then we won't. We going to be extinct eventually anyway, good ol evolution will see to that. (granted we will probably nuke ourselves to pieces long before then.)


"we will be extinct anyway, so why fix it" is honestly the most retarded thing I've read recently, and I've read some dumb thing, like "why not open windows on a vehicle traveling at a height where your internal fluids vaporize in an unpressurized environment."
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#160 Sep 26 2012 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
CO2 does not cause heating. It causes Cooling. Why waste my time reading something that is inherently false before it was even written.


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

It's basic elementary school science, idiot.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#161 Sep 26 2012 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,670 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
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.
It was a hit movie.

Glaciers are one of our best metrics for measuring global temperature changes. Over-all across the planet glaciers are in retreat and rate of retreat is increasing.

Why would that happen if the planet was cooling?

Edit - speaking of bandaids, some ingenious Peruvians are indeed attempting to save their glaciers as they provide a necessary source of water for crops. They're covering their glaciers with saw-dust and straw to insulate them one experiment has them painting mountainsides white to try and get glaciers to return. Success is local and limited but they have had some success.



Edited, Sep 26th 2012 7:32pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#162 Sep 26 2012 at 11:28 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
CO2 does not cause heating. It causes Cooling. Why waste my time reading something that is inherently false before it was even written.


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

It's basic elementary school science, idiot.


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

Guess you should go back to school.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#163 Sep 26 2012 at 11:30 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Elinda wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
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.
It was a hit move.

Glaciers are one of our best metrics for measuring global temperature changes. Over-all across the planet glaciers are in retreat and rate of retreat is increasing.

Why would that happen if the planet was cooling?


because the planet is warming still from the last ice age would be my guess.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#164 Sep 26 2012 at 11:33 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I
rdmcandie wrote:
I don't know how well blocking the sun or limiting the sun would work. I mean that is a pretty serious band-aid for a situation that has happened countless times in this planets history. Would be pretty funny though to get it all set up only to realize it was just natural heating and then we freeze ourselves, destroy our own food, and eliminate most living stuff on the planet.

Although I guess then you could say humans had a hand in wrecking the climate after all.

I don't think its wise to try and limit the source of all life on this planet. Just me though.

I say ride it out, the planet is a self correcting juggernaut, it has done it before it will do it again, and if it decides that we no longer fit into the puzzle, then we won't. We going to be extinct eventually anyway, good ol evolution will see to that. (granted we will probably nuke ourselves to pieces long before then.)


"we will be extinct anyway, so why fix it" is honestly the most retarded thing I've read recently, and I've read some dumb thing, like "why not open windows on a vehicle traveling at a height where your internal fluids vaporize in an unpressurized environment."


Well first because there isn't a problem. The same trends are occurring as have appeared in every heating/cooling period that we have knowledge of. We are approaching the apex of our heating cycle. Heck we are still 3 degrees colder than it was 400000 years ago, we are colder than 300.000 years ago, colder than 200,000 years ago, colder than 100000 years ago.

Why fix it if it ain't broke?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#165 Sep 26 2012 at 11:41 AM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
CO2 does not cause heating. It causes Cooling. Why waste my time reading something that is inherently false before it was even written.


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

It's basic elementary school science, idiot.

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

Guess you should go back to school.


Or maybe you should understand what you're reading. CO2 traps heat at the surface. Convection may cause atmospheric cooling, but the two systems are very different.

A significant portion of the observed stratospheric cooling is also due to human-emitted greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Climate models predict that if greenhouse gases are to blame for heating at the surface, compensating cooling must occur in the upper atmosphere. We need only look as far as our sister planet, Venus, to see the truth of this theory. Venus's atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, which has triggered a run-away greenhouse effect of truly hellish proportions. The average surface temperature on Venus is a very toasty 894 °F! However, Venus's upper atmosphere is a much colder than Earth's upper atmosphere.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#166 Sep 26 2012 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
So, youre just arguing that heating is happening, but nothing should be done about it, regardless of the effects.

Addon question: Even if the cost to do so is less than the cost of the ill effects?
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#167 Sep 26 2012 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
and the near-surface temperature would decline to 281.6 K. Thus, the atmospheric temperature
would decreases by 6.4ıC, instead of increasing according to the traditional theory



Quote:
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.


Perhaps you should read the whole article next time champ. 2Cool4School!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#168 Sep 26 2012 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
So, youre just arguing that heating is happening, but nothing should be done about it, regardless of the effects.

Addon question: Even if the cost to do so is less than the cost of the ill effects?


Sounds about right, according to all the data the Climatologists use, we are right on pace with every other heating/cooling cycle (that we have data for). Why fix it, if it ain't broken. I gotta ask though, what ill effects. I am sure you have documentation outlining those from the last cycle ya? Or are you just taking in more of the scary Global Warming "facts" than you should be?


Unrelated I am going to work now, argue with Gbaji until I get home, I am sure its more fun anyway.




Edited, Sep 26th 2012 1:52pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#169 Sep 26 2012 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
NASA engineers quoted ~20 billion for a 0.5% filter based on 2004 launch and engr costs. That's expensive, but not that expensive.


Cite? Not that I don't believe you, just would like to see the proposal.
#170 Sep 26 2012 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,670 posts
rdmcandie wrote:


The same trends are occurring as have appeared in every heating/cooling period that we have knowledge of.

But they're not. The rate of change of CO2 levels we've seen over the last century exceed any change of CO2 levels seen moving from ice age to non ice age which is is an average time period of about 5000 years. Also absolute levels of CO2 are higher then ever before.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#171 Sep 26 2012 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
I'll try to find the paper.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#172 Sep 26 2012 at 12:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Found a few articles. The one's that refer to actual sun shades (space based) are still in the many trillions of dollars (some hundreds of trillions) range for setup, do not include maintenance from what I can see and more importantly are based on non-existent technologies.

The cheaper options some as low as 5 billion, though that one was only to slow warming, involve dispersing reflective compounds into the atmosphere like I said, but those articles also raise the same concerns I did. We still have to breath the air so putting things in it to block sunlight isn't exactly safe. Proper solar shades could be turned off, these methods couldn't.
#173 Sep 26 2012 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,677 posts
Elinda wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:


The same trends are occurring as have appeared in every heating/cooling period that we have knowledge of.

But they're not. The rate of change of CO2 levels we've seen over the last century exceed any change of CO2 levels seen moving from ice age to non ice age which is is an average time period of about 5000 years. Also absolute levels of CO2 are higher then ever before.

Maybe we're moving from a non ice age to an ice age.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#174 Sep 26 2012 at 12:45 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Maybe there's just a higher ratio of animal -> plant life now than in the past. The reasons don't really matter, what matters is what the repercussions are and how we're going to survive them.
#175 Sep 26 2012 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,601 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Elinda wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:


The same trends are occurring as have appeared in every heating/cooling period that we have knowledge of.

But they're not. The rate of change of CO2 levels we've seen over the last century exceed any change of CO2 levels seen moving from ice age to non ice age which is is an average time period of about 5000 years. Also absolute levels of CO2 are higher then ever before.

Maybe we're moving from a non ice age to an ice age.


That was one of the conclusions of this piece.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 11:48am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#176 Sep 26 2012 at 12:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
That was one of the conclusions of this piece.


The link wrote:
(It must be noted that water vapor is considered as the main greenhouse gas.)


Well that's interesting. Irrigation?
#177 Sep 26 2012 at 12:56 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Allegory wrote:
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


You guys keep tossing out data like it means something.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#178 Sep 26 2012 at 12:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,601 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Well that's interesting. Irrigation?


We need more restrictions on how often people are allowed to water their lawn! Smiley: motz

But yeah, the 1896 paper above also talks about water a lot. See the first paragraph on 'page 239' (page 2 of the pdf) of that article, I can't copy/paste as it's not text...

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 12:08pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#179 Sep 26 2012 at 1:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
That's much scarier than CO2.

We can shut down the factories if we have to but people have to eat. Can't stop transporting water around.

It would make sense. Water vapour is heavy, it sits close to the surface so heat would be trapped in the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere would cool off (more powerful storms).

Heat distribution would change significantly. Land masses would warm due to farming irrigation adding water vapour to the air expanding the temp differential between land and sea which leads to increases in storm activity. It also depletes standing freshwater which acts as a sort of temperature capacitor to even out temperature variations, again, more violent weather.

Eventually global temps would increase, slowly as the greenhouse effect would be limited to farmed land masses to a degree but they would increase.
#180 Sep 26 2012 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Ok, so I've looked through various light-filter systems proposals, and cost estimate vary wildly, so, uh, I guess that's what you get when astro-physicists try to do cost estimates.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#181 Sep 26 2012 at 4:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,183 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
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?



I do! I do!

Mmm, smell that luxury. Next year we'll have to do platinum!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#182 Sep 26 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,563 posts

Well, silver is antimicrobial, so maybe it'd prevent the spread of airborne diseases. It might also turn everyone's skin blue, which would be neat!

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#183 Sep 26 2012 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Well, silver is antimicrobial, so maybe it'd prevent the spread of airborne diseases. It might also turn everyone's skin blue, which would be neat!


Sure, if you're a na'vi in the body of a human. Which, of course, no-one here is.

Of course.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#184 Sep 26 2012 at 7:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,475 posts
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
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.


...

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).


Allegory wrote:
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.


Ok. So as I suspected, you are changing the meaning of ROI.

Ugly's original statement, which started this whole thing was:

Quote:
Not everything cuts into profits. A lot of green initiatives have excellent ROI's.


You can see where you went wrong, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#185 Sep 26 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,475 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
CO2 does not cause heating. It causes Cooling. Why waste my time reading something that is inherently false before it was even written.


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

It's basic elementary school science, idiot.


Not defending (or really even paying much attention) to what rdm is saying, but it's not as simple as that. If it was, the Earth would be 1000 degrees in the shade right now. There are feedback processes which naturally prevent a runaway greenhouse gas effect. As several people have touched upon, there are ways to mitigate the effect. But increasing the radiative output is *not* the only one. Decreasing the radiative input is as well. And an interesting factor is that while there's a positive feedback effect with some greenhouse gases (as it gets hotter, they are released more, increasing their effect), there are larger negative effects which occur as temperatures increase. These act to block the suns rays from reaching far into the atmosphere. Decreasing the heat absorption has the exact same effect as increasing the heat dissipation (well, not "exact", but the same result in terms of temperatures over time).

If this didn't happen, all planets would either spiral into frozen blocks or superheated gas planets. The Earth has managed to have a whole **** of a lot more variation in its temperature and CO2 levels (and other gases as well) than we've seen anytime recently. The argument being made is that this time, even though the variations really are quite small, it'll overwhelm those negative feedback processes. Why? Because we're here and we're "special".

When given the choice between assuming that greenhouse gases emitted by humans is somehow magically different than that emitted by numerous naturally occurring events and processes in the past or assuming that humans just think they're more important and significant than they really are, I'll pick the latter. Certainly, I'm not going to put much weight in people shouting like Chicken Little about something that is incredibly unlikely to be happening. And frankly, if it is, unless someone can come up with a **** of a lot better plan than the liberals have, it's not going to make any difference.


I'll point out *again* (since this got mostly ignored) that my biggest issue isn't over whether or not the science says this, or that, or the other thing. I could care less about what scientists say about something if there wasn't a corresponding political agenda involved. And try as I might, I can't see any rational reason to accept said agendas proposals. They don't seem to be aimed at doing anything other than increasing government control of industry, shuffling industry from first world to developing nations, hurting the US economy, and in all likelihood making whatever problems there are worse. The whole thing is pretty dumb all the way around. As I stated earlier, there is a massive disconnect between what the actual science says and the proposed solutions being pushed on us. It's politics hiding behind science IMO. I'm not aware of a single climate scientist who's said that cap and trade will cause CO2 levels to decrease globally. Then why do so many people point to the science and say that's why we need cap and trade (for example)? That doesn't make any sense at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#186 Sep 26 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,564 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ok. So as I suspected, you are changing the meaning of ROI.

No. I never said anything about ROI. You made up that part entirely. I wrote a response to your singular comment that if a business can do something to save money, then they will do it. Not always, because sometimes those savings are dependent on the choices of others.

Paying for a single mile of a highway that connects to nothing does nothing for me. It's only if everyone else also pays for a single mile of highway that we end up with something that benefits us all. Sometimes, governments are needed to force people collude for their own benefit. It's cheaper for me to pay the government to force businesses to provide safe food than it is to let businesses do whatever the fudge they want and have me take on the responsibility and expense of testing everything I eat.

That's part of the issue with green programs. Even if the net savings outweigh the cost, it may not bee done because the agent taking on the cost may not see his personal savings be enough to cover the cost.
#187 Sep 26 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Quote:
If this didn't happen, all planets would either spiral into frozen blocks or superheated gas planets. The Earth has managed to have a whole **** of a lot more variation in its temperature and CO2 levels (and other gases as well) than we've seen anytime recently. The argument being made is that this time, even though the variations really are quite small, it'll overwhelm those negative feedback processes. Why? Because we're here and we're "special".


You do realize 99.99% of planets are inhospitable, and that our planet was inhospitable for the majority of it's lifetime, right?
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#188 Sep 26 2012 at 9:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Elinda wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:


The same trends are occurring as have appeared in every heating/cooling period that we have knowledge of.

But they're not. The rate of change of CO2 levels we've seen over the last century exceed any change of CO2 levels seen moving from ice age to non ice age which is is an average time period of about 5000 years. Also absolute levels of CO2 are higher then ever before.



But you are over looking the point. Regardless of how we got there we are at essentially the same temperature (-3 degrees from the known warmest temperature) and have slightly more CO2. It is the same trend. If you took a plot line of all the data you would end up with an almost identical sine wave. The only variation being the end resulting temperature.

We have if anything sped up the process of cooling with CO2 we have not reached the maximum temperature variant as per the Ice Core data, and have slightly surpassed the peak CO2 variant as per the Ice Core data.

You can't look at one and ignore the other, and considering that CO2 is not a greenhouse contributor itself than that means:

Global Warming is being caused by some other source, be it a different Green House contributor, such as vapors, and methane. Two gases which are almost impossible. Heck so is CO2 if you want to blanket the oceans (which contribute more CO2 than humans each year.) Which makes sense why our CO2 amount has been climbing, because the world is warming due to some source (I personally think the sun heating up). As we heat more ocean has been created, this has been ongoing since the last minor ice age (about 18000 years ago when the Sea Bridge between Alaska and Russia existed, allowing population of the Americas). The more Ocean the more CO2. About 40% of total CO2 production on earth actually reaches the Atmosphere.

So no humans are not the big enemy. The enemy is the natural filtration process of our planet. Ironically enough we need it to survive. Water is what causes the CO2 levels not humans. I use enemy lightly you would first have to be naive enough to believe a gas that cools the atmosphere results in heated land temperatures when it is one of the lightest of the primary atmospheric gases and sits high in the atmosphere regulating temperatures there.

Methane sits lower, and is also about 20 times more effective as a green house gas, according to satellite thermal imagining. It is the primary cause of High Altitude warming, the stuff that sits just above the jet stream and gets to move around the world with our weather systems. This is impossible to combat as every living species on this planet emits methane in some way. The nice thing about methane is it is self regulating, it has a short life time, and disperses rather quickly. However it is in constant production, every second of every day methane is dispersed on Mass into its home in the jet stream.

The big one however is likely water vapors that hover in the low to mid altitudes, close enough to the surface to inflict warming, and close enough to the Methane to absorb warming from it. This convection heating almost causes temperatures to rise on the ground, and does not give the vapor time to cool. The only natural progression to solve that is for the Earth to produce more CO2 in order to cool the atmosphere enough, to cool the Methane, to cool the Water Vapor....Which is exactly what the earth is doing.

Sorry that is kind of long Ill try and TLDR.

For Heating = Methane > Water Vapor > Surface. = More Water and Thus More CO2 (More CO2 results in colder atmosphere which cools methane etc)
For Cooling = CO2 > Methane > Water Vapor to Surface. = Less Water and Thus less CO2 (warming atmosphere results in warming methane etc)
CO2 is emitted primarily by the Water systems of our planet. (levels way higher than us) only about 40% actually reaches the atmosphere. Sits High in the Atmosphere
Methane is produced by every living organism on the planet. Every second of every day. Sits in High Altitude. Disperses quick. But constantly replaced.
Water Vapor, comes from our water systems, it is the primary thermostat for Surface temperatures.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#189 Sep 26 2012 at 11:02 PM Rating: Good
double

Edited, Sep 27th 2012 1:03am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#190 Sep 26 2012 at 11:02 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
You can't look at one and ignore the other, and considering that CO2 is not a greenhouse contributor itself than that means:


CO2 IS a greenhouse contributor. Is it the biggest possible one? No. Is it the one humans are mostly responsible for? Yes.

Quote:
Global Warming is being caused by some other source, be it a different Green House contributor, such as vapors, and methane. Two gases which are almost impossible. Heck so is CO2 if you want to blanket the oceans (which contribute more CO2 than humans each year.) Which makes sense why our CO2 amount has been climbing, because the world is warming due to some source (I personally think the sun heating up). As we heat more ocean has been created, this has been ongoing since the last minor ice age (about 18000 years ago when the Sea Bridge between Alaska and Russia existed, allowing population of the Americas). The more Ocean the more CO2. About 40% of total CO2 production on earth actually reaches the Atmosphere.


Actually, the melting of any ice in the ocean anywhere doesn't contribute to "creating ocean" at all. Don't believe me? Put an ice cube in a glass of water, mark the level, & wait for it to melt. That level will stay the same. It's the melting of ice on land that contributes to rising ocean levels, hence why people are freaking out about Greenland's ice melt this year.

Quote:
So no humans are not the big enemy. The enemy is the natural filtration process of our planet. Ironically enough we need it to survive. Water is what causes the CO2 levels not humans. I use enemy lightly you would first have to be naive enough to believe a gas that cools the atmosphere results in heated land temperatures when it is one of the lightest of the primary atmospheric gases and sits high in the atmosphere regulating temperatures there.


Humans use energy by burning fossil fuels. The burning of said fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere that wouldn't be there if we used alternative energies. Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but we humans have destroyed a lot of them so there's a lot less of them than there used to be. Reducing humankind's CO2 emissions & planting trees/restoring rain forest would help to slow down the human influence of climate change & should be done for future generations. It isn't getting done simply because there's too much money in business as usual practices.

Quote:
Methane sits lower, and is also about 20 times more effective as a green house gas, according to satellite thermal imagining. It is the primary cause of High Altitude warming, the stuff that sits just above the jet stream and gets to move around the world with our weather systems. This is impossible to combat as every living species on this planet emits methane in some way. The nice thing about methane is it is self regulating, it has a short life time, and disperses rather quickly. However it is in constant production, every second of every day methane is dispersed on Mass into its home in the jet stream.


Methane CAN be regulated, simply be reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is also produced by decay & the melting of the arctic permafrost is becoming a huge contributor of methane gas.

I don't think you're wrong about water vapor, but I think your wrong that slowing down emissions isn't the right thing to do. Slowing down the use of aerosols led to the healing of the ozone layer (in some places. Australia is still **** however), slowing down human emissions will slow down the human factor involved in global warming. There's really no reason not to try, unless you're an oil baron.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#191 Sep 26 2012 at 11:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Quote:
There's really no reason not to try, unless you're an oil baron.


No, if the science weren't pretty much settled, high energy costs would slow down pretty much every aspect of progress.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#192 Sep 27 2012 at 12:48 AM Rating: Good
tlw wrote:
No, if the science weren't pretty much settled, high energy costs would slow down pretty much every aspect of progress.


Hybrid vehicles & planting some trees will not lead to increased energy costs. Forcing people to use alternative energy instead of transitioning from fossil fuels would certainly do that, but I don't know of anyone advocating that in this thread.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#193 Sep 27 2012 at 6:38 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,670 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Elinda wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:


The same trends are occurring as have appeared in every heating/cooling period that we have knowledge of.

But they're not. The rate of change of CO2 levels we've seen over the last century exceed any change of CO2 levels seen moving from ice age to non ice age which is is an average time period of about 5000 years. Also absolute levels of CO2 are higher then ever before.



But you are over looking the point. Regardless of how we got there we are at essentially the same temperature (-3 degrees from the known warmest temperature) and have slightly more CO2. It is the same trend. If you took a plot line of all the data you would end up with an almost identical sine wave. The only variation being the end resulting temperature.


If you zoom in to the last hundred years of that plot you'll see far greater variation over time than if you were to zoom in on any other hundred year chunk of time.

I'm not sure how you can readily admit that we humans are changing our atmosphere yet deny that there is any consequence to that change.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#194 Sep 27 2012 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
******
43,432 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Hybrid vehicles
-- are the reason we don't have flying cars. Smiley: motz
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#195 Sep 27 2012 at 8:33 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
You can't look at one and ignore the other, and considering that CO2 is not a greenhouse contributor itself than that means:


CO2 IS a greenhouse contributor. Is it the biggest possible one? No. Is it the one humans are mostly responsible for? Yes.



Humans inflict the least amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. The Water systems of our world contribute 10 times more CO2 than we do, and all combined less than half of that actually reaches the upper atmosphere. Where it has no impact on surface temperatures. It has a net cooling effect the more CO2 their is the more cold air is pushed down into other regions of the atmosphere.

Quote:
Humans use energy by burning fossil fuels. The burning of said fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere that wouldn't be there if we used alternative energies. Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but we humans have destroyed a lot of them so there's a lot less of them than there used to be. Reducing humankind's CO2 emissions & planting trees/restoring rain forest would help to slow down the human influence of climate change & should be done for future generations. It isn't getting done simply because there's too much money in business as usual practices.


Again we are small potatoes, again CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas. It sits to high in the atmosphere for one and for two it cools the atmosphere not heat it. Third there is no evidence that CO2 has caused any climate change, which means we humans have had 0 effect on it. We have more CO2 in our system than recorded in the last 400000 years, yet we are still not as hot as the last 3 previous peak temperature periods, and are experiencing trends of cooling. Such as the expanding antarctic Ice shelf, and the predicted expansion of Arctic ice.

Quote:
slowing down human emissions will slow down the human factor involved in global warming. There's really no reason not to try, unless you're an oil baron.


No it won't we are insignificant producers compared to natural effects, removing us from the equation will do very little to the end result. The earth is gearing up to get cold, and to do that it needs more CO2 in the atmosphere, it has happened the same way for the last 400'000 years, when it decides it is time to heat up, it is because the CO2 has been removed from the atmosphere, and the cycle starts again.

Also I disagree with there not being a reason to not try. Based on the following. We have no @#%^ing idea how this planet works, why @#%^ with it. I mean we think we do, but we can't even agree on half the sh*t we consider fact! New stuff is found all the time. I mean sh*t we can't even agree on what is causing Global warming. The lap dog of the UN wants to blame us. Cool, evidence doesn't support it but whatever its a theory, others claim it is a natural cycle that has been marching on for billions of years, maybe they are right. Some folks claim that we are warming up because the Sun is warming up, which does make a lot of sense, and explains why Mars is warming at a similar rate as us even though it doesn't have pesky humans dumping CO2 into is 98% based CO2 atmosphere.

I say do nothing, because we don't know what to do, why fix it if it aint broken. **** some of the leading ideas actually want to block a portion of the sun. That is incredibly retarded, sh*t the only thing we know for sure about this little blue green rock is that without that bad boy there is no life.


I
Elinda wrote:
f you zoom in to the last hundred years of that plot you'll see far greater variation over time than if you were to zoom in on any other hundred year chunk of time.

I'm not sure how you can readily admit that we humans are changing our atmosphere yet deny that there is any consequence to that change.


Of course if you zoom in on the last 100 years it has greater variation, we also had greater means of checking, tracking, and recording weather than any other previous period. There is way more data than any other period of time. If you look at the Volstok charts you can see where they merged data that was kept by people and data that is simply based off that found in the ice cores, as it nears either end the data either become more intense thus much more deviation, or it becomes less intense with only 1-2 points of deviation.

Of course there is consequences when the climate changes, we will have to adapt we have done it before as a species probably dozens of times according to climate history. But it isn't humans that are causing it, it is a natural recurring event, that has happened numerous times in the past, and we aren't even on the list of top contributors to it.

I swear some people just have this desire to believe we are actually more special then we are. We are nothing literally, we are the same food tube as everything else on this planet, we live and die like every other food tube on this planet, have for hundreds of thousands of years, and will do so until the planet decides it doesn't want us anymore, and wipes us out with some awesome disease like the Plague. Or Aids.

Edited, Sep 27th 2012 12:33pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#196 Sep 27 2012 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,601 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'm not sure how you can readily admit that we humans are changing our atmosphere yet deny that there is any consequence to that change.


Post 162.

The jist of it is that CO2 affects the atmosphere in ways the 1896 paper couldn't have conceived of. From what I can find, the idea is still in it's infancy. Google scholar only found 12 different works citing it, and they weren't all publications.

They've put together an equation which appears to at least roughly match observations on Earth and Venus. My link in post 175 describes more of the theory, and matches warming trends on earth with those observed on other planets, making the case the sun is more responsible for the increase in temperature.

Do I buy it? No really, not yet at least.

As a theory goes it's an idea which fits in line with some observations, which is good, but it has a long way to go (IMO) before it's well grounded. Needs more data by more different labs if it's really going to overturn 120 years of largely accepted science.

A lot of the citations of the paper were from members of the same group, which never helps. From what I can tell there isn't really a peer-reviewed rebuttal citing their argument that I could find. The mainstream climate science people see the idea as either to undeveloped to address, or dismiss it as 'politically motivated' (just paraphrasing my impression of 15 min of googling).

Not that it's necessarily 'wrong' of course, but there's certainly more work needed to do to prove the idea. At least from what I can tell with my limited knowledge of the subject.

Edited, Sep 27th 2012 8:33am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#197 Sep 27 2012 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
I'm just going to leave this here.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#198 Sep 28 2012 at 12:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Humans inflict the least amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. The Water systems of our world contribute 10 times more CO2 than we do, and all combined less than half of that actually reaches the upper atmosphere. Where it has no impact on surface temperatures. It has a net cooling effect the more CO2 their is the more cold air is pushed down into other regions of the atmosphere.


The problem is that before humans started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, provided there weren't any big volcanoes going off, most CO2 was reabsorbed naturally by plants & animals (algae) on the land & in the ocean. Despite how "small" the amount of CO2 is that humans emit via the burning of fossil fuels, the issue is that only 40% of that can be reabsorbed naturally. The other 60% is cumulative, and because of that atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years! Cite.

Quote:

Again we are small potatoes, again CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas. It sits to high in the atmosphere for one and for two it cools the atmosphere not heat it. Third there is no evidence that CO2 has caused any climate change, which means we humans have had 0 effect on it. We have more CO2 in our system than recorded in the last 400000 years, yet we are still not as hot as the last 3 previous peak temperature periods, and are experiencing trends of cooling. Such as the expanding antarctic Ice shelf, and the predicted expansion of Arctic ice.


The direct contribution towards the Greenhouse effect by Carbon dioxide alone is anywhere between 9 - 26%. The higher end of the range is quoted for the gas alone; the lower end accounts for overlap with other gases. (Cite). The big issue in regards to CO2 as compared to other gases is how long it sticks around & how it accumulates: Water Vapor has a residence time of only about 9 days, while CO2 is variable. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years before it is removed naturally. However, while more than half of the CO2 emitted is currently removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

Also;
-There is plenty of evidence of global warming. It is unknown exactly how much CO2 plays a roll in that, but it isn't disputed that it plays a roll.
-There is direct scientific evidence that humans contribute to increased CO2. Every time you turn on a light, or go for a drive, you're contributing.
-While some areas may show trends of cooling, global temperature have increased. This is a fact.
- I'd love to see a cite where arctic/antarctic ice is supposed to expand, outside of it's usual seasonal expansions.

Quote:
No it won't we are insignificant producers compared to natural effects, removing us from the equation will do very little to the end result. The earth is gearing up to get cold, and to do that it needs more CO2 in the atmosphere, it has happened the same way for the last 400'000 years, when it decides it is time to heat up, it is because the CO2 has been removed from the atmosphere, and the cycle starts again.

Also I disagree with there not being a reason to not try. Based on the following. We have no @#%^ing idea how this planet works, why @#%^ with it. I mean we think we do, but we can't even agree on half the sh*t we consider fact! New stuff is found all the time. I mean sh*t we can't even agree on what is causing Global warming. The lap dog of the UN wants to blame us. Cool, evidence doesn't support it but whatever its a theory, others claim it is a natural cycle that has been marching on for billions of years, maybe they are right. Some folks claim that we are warming up because the Sun is warming up, which does make a lot of sense, and explains why Mars is warming at a similar rate as us even though it doesn't have pesky humans dumping CO2 into is 98% based CO2 atmosphere.

I say do nothing, because we don't know what to do, why fix it if it aint broken. **** some of the leading ideas actually want to block a portion of the sun. That is incredibly retarded, sh*t the only thing we know for sure about this little blue green rock is that without that bad boy there is no life.


- Since 1979, the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling effect on the Earth.
- The more we reduce greenhouse gas emissions now, the more the effects of man-made global warming will be reduced in the future.
- It isn't broken yet, but it will be if we don't do something. See; Venus.

Quote:
Of course there is consequences when the climate changes, we will have to adapt we have done it before as a species probably dozens of times according to climate history. But it isn't humans that are causing it, it is a natural recurring event, that has happened numerous times in the past, and we aren't even on the list of top contributors to it.


We are unique tool using apes who can adapt using said tools, the rest of the life on Earth doesn't have that privilege. While climate change does occur naturally, right now, it also occuring due to human influence (there are 7billion of us & we're increasing). While we aren't the top contributor, we are the only contributor that emits Greenhouse Gases that the Earth can't take care of naturally while also removing the natural ways the Earth has for removing CO2 via deforestation & Ocean pollution.

We're also the only species that knows we're doing it & can't be bothered to do anything about it.

Quote:
I swear some people just have this desire to believe we are actually more special then we are. We are nothing literally, we are the same food tube as everything else on this planet, we live and die like every other food tube on this planet, have for hundreds of thousands of years, and will do so until the planet decides it doesn't want us anymore, and wipes us out with some awesome disease like the Plague. Or Aids.


We are the only food tube on this planet that can save it from ourselves, which certainly makes us unique. Choosing not to do so because we're all going to die eventually anyway is not only extremely pessimistic, it's lazy.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 63 All times are in CDT