Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

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

QuoteReply
#152 Sep 26 2012 at 10:27 AM Rating: Default
rdmcandie
View User Forum
Scholar
Avatar
****
7,564 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#153 Sep 26 2012 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
someproteinguy
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 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
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#154 Sep 26 2012 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good
Timelordwho
View User Forum
Unplanned
Avatar
*****
13,240 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
____________________________
Just as Planned.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#155 Sep 26 2012 at 10:59 AM Rating: Decent
rdmcandie
View User Forum
Scholar
Avatar
****
7,564 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#156 Sep 26 2012 at 11:03 AM Rating: Decent
Yodabunny
Scholar
****
4,593 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.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#157 Sep 26 2012 at 11:09 AM Rating: Default
rdmcandie
View User Forum
Scholar
Avatar
****
7,564 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#158 Sep 26 2012 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Timelordwho
View User Forum
Unplanned
Avatar
*****
13,240 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.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#159 Sep 26 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
Timelordwho
View User Forum
Unplanned
Avatar
*****
13,240 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."
____________________________
Just as Planned.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#160 Sep 26 2012 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 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.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#161 Sep 26 2012 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 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:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#162 Sep 26 2012 at 11:28 AM Rating: Decent
rdmcandie
View User Forum
Scholar
Avatar
****
7,564 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#163 Sep 26 2012 at 11:30 AM Rating: Decent
rdmcandie
View User Forum
Scholar
Avatar
****
7,564 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#164 Sep 26 2012 at 11:33 AM Rating: Decent
rdmcandie
View User Forum
Scholar
Avatar
****
7,564 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#165 Sep 26 2012 at 11:41 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 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.

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp wrote:
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.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#166 Sep 26 2012 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Timelordwho
View User Forum
Unplanned
Avatar
*****
13,240 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?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#167 Sep 26 2012 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
rdmcandie
View User Forum
Scholar
Avatar
****
7,564 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#168 Sep 26 2012 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
rdmcandie
View User Forum
Scholar
Avatar
****
7,564 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#169 Sep 26 2012 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
Yodabunny
Scholar
****
4,593 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.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#170 Sep 26 2012 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 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:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#171 Sep 26 2012 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
Timelordwho
View User Forum
Unplanned
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I'll try to find the paper.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#172 Sep 26 2012 at 12:36 PM Rating: Decent
Yodabunny
Scholar
****
4,593 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.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#173 Sep 26 2012 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
Uglysasquatch
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 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.


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

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#174 Sep 26 2012 at 12:45 PM Rating: Decent
Yodabunny
Scholar
****
4,593 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.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#175 Sep 26 2012 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
someproteinguy
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 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
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#176 Sep 26 2012 at 12:52 PM Rating: Decent
Yodabunny
Scholar
****
4,593 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?
▲ Page top
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 290 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (290)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC