User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 205

  1. #171
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    As a matter of fact, modern agriculture might have a deeper impact than urbanization. And heavy industries aren't necessarily located near the most populated cities, on the contrary!
    Could you elaborate on this further? Cause I have read some arguments made that the nature of modern argicultural methods do contribute as much pollution as industry.

  2. #172
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Could you elaborate on this further? Cause I have read some arguments made that the nature of modern argicultural methods do contribute as much pollution as industry.
    Let's say that if you are a domestic bee, your odds of survival are better if your hive is located on the roof of the Opera (in Paris) than in the French countryside. And the honey they produce here is less polluted with pesticides and chemicals... and these molecules represent a far more dangerous threat than air pollution with Ozone, SO2 or NOx...

    As a matter of fact, single-crop farming has a devastating effect on the environment (and especially corn farming).
    Last edited by Blackmail!; 12-07-2009 at 12:46 PM.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  3. #173
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Let's say that if you are a domestic bee, your odds of survival are better in the middle of Paris than in the French countryside. And the honey they produce here is less polluted with pesticides and chemicals...

    As a matter of fact, single-crop farming has a devastating effect on the environment (and especially corn farming).
    Gotcha. In many ways agree I with you on that point - yeah imagine that!

  4. #174
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    You obviously have misinterpreted the CO2 lag (that happened through long natural cycles, and not artificial ones). You're just pontificating over incomplete datas.

    Tell me, where have you read your curious (and absurd) theory?
    The CO2 lag is ~1000 years in most cases, generally ranging from 700~1200 on average. In some extreeme cases, it has been caught as low as 95 years.

    The specific information I was referring to was on the news awhile ago from an Antarctic research station, but I don't recall which one. A quick search of google easily picked up more than enough relevant information.

    TRENDS: ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE is probably the most useful of the information sites I came across however, showing clear data and explanations behind it.

    In short though, the CO2 lag is significant enough that seeing a rise in CO2 doesn't mean much in terms of global warming being caused by it, but actually rather states that there's a limiting reagent if yeu use a little common sense here; if the temperature goes up, THEN the CO2 rises afterwards, there should then be a second subsequent rise in temperature due to the CO2 increase. After this rise, the CO2 should once again rise in correlation to such. Obviously we don't see this, showing there's a limiting impact of how far it can raise temperatures.





    That not true AT ALL!!!!
    Saying so doesn't make it so XD



    Again, more than 99% of the current scientific studies on climatology all show that global warming is occuring. The other conclusions you are talking about are insignificant anecdotes, or misleading propaganda spread by journalists with an agenda, or the oil lobby.

    It's not one team against another, and another, it's rather 99% of them against the remaining 1%.
    Unfortunately there's also been reports of the exact opposite being quoted as well.

    All things considered, I've seen the numbers, and it's not exactly true. The average temperature *HAS* increased by roughly ~0.5 degrees at the poles over the last 20 years. The temperature at the equator, however, has *DECREASED* by approximately ~1.0 degrees as well during this time, meaning there hasn't really been much of a shift. The increased temperatures where it'll make the biggest difference (the poles) is important however, as that is having a direct effect that's measurable.

    It's not global warming though, but it is considered to be climate change.

    The 99% number is kind of silly though, especially since, as stated, some of this data does actually conflict, as there are lowering temperatures in some areas, and some cases of positive data have been used despite being corrupted (I even saw one case where they used temperature readings from a sensor which had had a parking lot built around it during the time it was placed and checked...)



    O yes! There is a large international consensus based on scientific evidences.

    The only remaining issue is IDEOLOGICAL and POLITICAL. But don't confuse this false debate with Science.
    Climate change has definately been made as a consensus, however, the global warming as a whole has been moved away from as much of the evidence now suggests other factors are involved. Personally I'm still a bit concerned on the matter due to the solar cycle and several other aspects which I've yet to see anyone take into account properly for... I do worry a bit that in about ~13 years we'll see a rather noticible spike when it reverses but maybe I'm overestimating the effect as well. Haven't really been able to find much for data on the effects of that unfortunately.



    "Common sense" is not always rational. Here we have a clear proof of it.
    Common sense isn't common either sadly. I don't know about 'clear proof' however, as yeu've shown nothing to prove such.



    Once again, you're totally wrong.
    Once again, saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. Yeu're totally wronger than I am!

    ...wait wronger doesn't get picked up by spellcheck? That's... odd... Well it's even wrongerer than yeu are then!

    Cities don't necessarily have a "more noticeable impact on their environment than an equal population of small towns spread out over a larger area".
    Not necessarily, this is true, in the vast majority of cases however, it's generally so. It depends on the particular industries available of course, though certain things such as commuting are far more widespread in an industrialized city.




    As a matter of fact, modern agriculture might have a deeper impact than urbanization. And heavy industries aren't necessarily located near the most populated cities, on the contrary!
    True, generally they're nearby a city due to large number of workers available, but not directly inside city boarders due to issues with smog and pollution. And the agriculture with the vast open fields can cause significant damage. Fortunately, most of the worst pesticides have gone into disuse; the remaining ones tend on average to be lower in toxins than organically grown crops; unfortunately organically grown stuff has a pretty high following right now, and wastes an enormous amount of space.

    That being said, mid sized industrial towns can also play a large role as well, though they are a minority and most are borderline classified as cities anyway if there's that many industrial sites nearby, due to the amount of human resources required to maintain them.



    You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
    So far I'm considering the same for yeur own point of view as yeu've failed to really provide any information other than saying "yeu're wrong!" alot.


    Maybe it's time for you to read more scientific papers?

    -Especially about the CO2 lag, I might suggest-
    As stated I'm well aware of the CO2 lag and its' implications. Essentially, it proves my point, that the lag time between its' increase and the temperature increase shows that CO2 does not in fact have much direct impact upon temperature. If it did, we'd see subsequent spikes raising consistently and predictably after each initial temperature increase, and interglacial transition records show such does not occur.

  5. #175
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    The CO2 lag is ~1000 years in most cases, generally ranging from 700~1200 on average. In some extreeme cases, it has been caught as low as 95 years.

    The specific information I was referring to was on the news awhile ago from an Antarctic research station, but I don't recall which one. A quick search of google easily picked up more than enough relevant information.

    TRENDS: ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE is probably the most useful of the information sites I came across however, showing clear data and explanations behind it.

    In short though, the CO2 lag is significant enough that seeing a rise in CO2 doesn't mean much in terms of global warming being caused by it, but actually rather states that there's a limiting reagent if yeu use a little common sense here; if the temperature goes up, THEN the CO2 rises afterwards, there should then be a second subsequent rise in temperature due to the CO2 increase. After this rise, the CO2 should once again rise in correlation to such. Obviously we don't see this, showing there's a limiting impact of how far it can raise temperatures.

    (...)

    As stated I'm well aware of the CO2 lag and its' implications. Essentially, it proves my point, that the lag time between its' increase and the temperature increase shows that CO2 does not in fact have much direct impact upon temperature. If it did, we'd see subsequent spikes raising consistently and predictably after each initial temperature increase, and interglacial transition records show such does not occur.

    Could you stop the bad faith, please?


    1/ The site you quote doesn't agree at all with your curious interpretation.

    2/ You are obviously confusing or messing several studies, and different time scales.
    Even a 800 years gap is very short compared to the glaciation cycles (appr 5000 years/80000 years).
    -> http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publicati...lonTermIII.pdf

    "This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO 2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3). "


    3/ The Scientists that showed the existence of this gap also explained that according to their models, CO2 is responsible for at least half of the warming occuring during an interglacial, thanks to its positive feedback.

    4/ You cannot make direct comparisons between "natural" deglaciation cycles and what is occuring today, since we have now nearly 400 ppm of CO2. This never happened before, even during interglacials. This is a totally new situation.

    5/ We have direct evidences of the greenhouse effect due to CO2 thanks to satellites.

    ---

    Or in French, if you can read it:

    "En compilant les données paléo disponibles, et pas seulement celles obtenues à partir de carottes de glace, il est possible de proposer une séquence d’événements se produisant lors d’une terminaison. Un processus (encore mal connu) provoque le réchauffement du secteur antarctique. Ce processus est également à l’origine du démarrage de l’augmentation du CO2 atmosphérique 800 ans après celui de la température. Ensuite, le CO2 contribue au réchauffement de toute la planète de part son rôle de gaz à effet de serre, un réchauffement qui provoque à son tour une intensification du relargage de CO2 dans l’atmosphère.
    C’est ainsi que l’on parle de l’effet de rétroaction du CO2, effet comparable aux réactions parasites qui ont lieu quand on approche un microphone trop proche d’une enceinte.

    En d’autres termes, le CO2 ne déclenche pas le réchauffement, mais joue un rôle d’amplificateur une fois que celui-ci est en cours. Selon des estimations de modèles, l’effet du CO2 (avec celui du CH4 et du N2O) permet d’expliquer la moitié du réchauffement total se produisant lors des transitions glaciaire-interglaciaires.

    Pour résumer, le retard du CO2 sur la température ne nous dit pas grand-chose sur le réchauffement global actuel. Son estimation est cependant un élément intéressant pour comprendre le mécanisme à l’origine de l’augmentation du CO2 à la fin des périodes glaciaires. Ces 800 ans sont équivalents au temps nécessaire pour ventiler l’océan profond sous l’effet de courants océaniques. Ainsi, le CO2 serait stocké dans l’océan profond au cours des périodes glaciaires, puis réinjecté dans l’atmosphère lorsque le climat se réchauffe)."


    (Cf Jeff Severinghaus)
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  6. #176
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Are you implying that 99% of the current world climatologists are necessarily "highly politized"?
    Not at all, merely several prominent ones associated with research undertaken on behalf the UN and several national governments, and whose findings in turn influence many other scientists. I also don't think a "highly politicized atmosphere" amounts to either deliberate or large-scale fraud, but it DOES compromise the integrity (not to mention professionalism) of the research process, as those infamous e-mails illustrate. In any event, there is no scientific consensus on the EXTENT and CONSEQUENCES of global warming, and my primary beef is with the counter-productive hysteria surrounding this issue on the international level, such as that which produced the the Kyoto Protocol.

  7. #177
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    You obviously have misinterpreted the CO2 lag (that happened through long natural cycles, and not artificial ones). You're just pontificating over incomplete datas.
    Thanks Blackmail - I went on the CDIAC site to examine the same. In addition, as has been said several times, CO2 levels are just one form of evidence used in support of climate change.


    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Or at the very least, don't bicker at each other about it. Spend the time reading a research paper each time yeu want to complain and yeu'll have a much better grasp of whot's going on.
    Katsuni, since you've mentioned your deep disregard for scientists across the board among whom there is a clear consensus (>90%) - far too many cites provided here in this thread alone, why suggest reading a research paper as a good use of time? How should we decide what research is useful or accurate or objective, given that you've railed against most of it?

    As Blackmail has already highlighted the problematic interpretation of the data on the CDIAC site, if you have more evidence against climate change instead of just railing against scientists, present it!

    Why pay attention to the consensus among scientists when we could just derail the whole debate by calling it too politicized like Lateralus who has yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    Blackmail you're full of BS and lies, you teach at a university do you? Well you know what they say don't you? Those who cannot do, teach. MARGINALIZED.
    Billy - when you have some actual evidence in stead of rhetoric and insults, be sure to present it. I'd be all ears.

    What do you do exactly that makes you better informed on the subject? Care to share evidence or do you plan to continue sounding the alarm for conspiracy theorists everywhere against Americans losing their freedoms due to stricter environmental policy...

    Yeah, those higher mileage cars that are going to save us all gas money, they're violating your basic rights...

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    For one, the fact that global temperatures have NOT been rising for the past several years, and more importantly that such a lag was not predicted before it happened cast doubt on the capacity of specialists to determine within reasonable accuracy the extent and consequences of future global warming trends.

    And in case there is some misunderstanding, I don't think there is any massive conspiracy, just a highly politicized atmosphere, especially where several prominent scientists are involved.
    LR - this goes back to what the majority of climate scientists are saying. Look at longer term trends, not short term ones. In the short run, temperatures may stay stable but in the longer run, they are rising and this trend is confirmed by climatologists, including the Mojib Latif who has been mentioned here before. This is exactly what they're saying -- looking at short term trends misses the big pattern and is inaccurate in terms of predictive ability.

    There is a highly politicized atmosphere, no doubt but I think it's important that we concentrate on the science and not let it get lost in the politics surrounding policies. There is a consensus among scientists, across the board and across disciplines that temperatures are rising over the long run and human activity contributes to this rise.

  8. #178
    Senior Member vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    321

    Default

    If you digest 99% of all current, daily scientific reports a sane man can only say global warming is D-day for mankind or at least the vast majority of us.

  9. #179
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince View Post
    If you digest 99% of all current, daily scientific reports a sane man can only say global warming is D-day for mankind or at least the vast majority of us.
    If by "D-Day" you mean an all-out battle to beat back a rising tide of totalitarian ideology, I'm completely with you.

  10. #180
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Why pay attention to the consensus among scientists when we could just derail the whole debate by calling it too politicized like Lateralus who has yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.
    It's a waste of time to present evidence to those blinded by confirmation bias and I try to use my time wisely.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. What is some viable proof of Global Warming?
    By Blackout in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 05-25-2016, 09:40 PM
  2. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  3. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  4. Conspiracy theories cluster - global warming hoax is among them.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-11-2012, 06:42 AM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO