User Tag List

First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 64

  1. #51
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,694

    Default

    First, I am not a scientist I am future scientist.

    I think that basic idea is quite simple.

    Since all of us here agree with a statement that carbon dioxide is greenhouse gas and I think that all of us agree that burning of fosil fuels is creating carbon dioxide.

    So I think that you don't have to be a genius to figure this one out.



    If you want the details, all of my post in this thread are my case.

    But to give you the short and concrete answer.

    Normal concentration od carbon dioxide is between 150 and 300 PPMs.
    Right now it is 400 PPMs.

    Normal level of methane is 0.7 PPMs now it is 1.6 PPMs.

    Also civilization is creating gases that are not part of the natural atmosphere and many of those gases are totally cloud classical gases that we are talking about here.

    The most drastic example of those gases is SF6 which is
    22 000 stronger then carbon dioxide.

    But my main point is that sistem can't work the same way if you add a lot more carbon in it. That carbon was stored in the earths crust for millions of years and now we are pumping it out in very short time.

    I have already said this but I will do so again becuse that is one of the key parts in this story.

    All data from the past is usless in this problem becuse we don't have the same system anymore.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Since all of us here agree with a statement that carbon dioxide is greenhouse gas and I think that all of us agree that burning of fosil fuels is creating carbon dioxide.
    It's a weak greenhouse gas. Yes, burning fossil fuels creates CO2, but is it harmful?
    Normal concentration od carbon dioxide is between 150 and 300 PPMs. Right now it is 400 PPMs.
    Normal? It's always been variable, with or without humans. And is it harmful? Plants adore it.
    Normal level of methane is 0.7 PPMs now it is 1.6 PPMs.Also civilization is creating gases that are not part of the natural atmosphere and many of those gases are totally cloud classical gases that we are talking about here. The most drastic example of those gases is SF6 which is 22 000 stronger then carbon dioxide.
    I haven't researched these other gases' effects on temperature; At first glance the amounts in the atmosphere today seem miniscule (Moreso by many factors than CO2).
    But my main point is that sistem can't work the same way if you add a lot more carbon in it. That carbon was stored in the earths crust for millions of years and now we are pumping it out in very short time.
    How do you know it can't? We've been pumping it out for over a hundred years, yet no siginificant warming attributable to man has transpired. And the supply is limited. Technology is advancing as fossil fuels become rarer (more expensive). We'll likely be getting most of our energy from other sources far before another hundred years has passed. That's just economics.

  3. #53
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post

    btw Zergling, yes, it's the sun, primarily.
    No, it may be the sun but it is still iffy either way. (On a personal note, do not say "Yes, Zergling, it is ..." unless you are in an obvious position to know more about something than me. Just because I do not have a strong opinion, or write as if i do not have a strong opinion, does not mean I have less information.)

    Looking at the temperature graphs on other such threads, both effects somewhat correlate with temperature changes, and somewhat do not.

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zergling View Post
    No, it may be the sun but it is still iffy either way. (On a personal note, do not say "Yes, Zergling, it is ..." unless you are in an obvious position to know more about something than me. Just because I do not have a strong opinion, or write as if i do not have a strong opinion, does not mean I have less information.)

    Looking at the temperature graphs on other such threads, both effects somewhat correlate with temperature changes, and somewhat do not.
    I don't know what you mean by "in an obvious position to know more about something...". Does being right qualify? It doesn't matter to me what your opinion is, or how strong it is, I'm not going to get any less confident that the Sun causes climate change.

    Add: Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
    Better Article: Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience
    Better Still: American Thinker: Global Warming and Solar Radiation
    Best: Scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age | Spero News

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    I don't know what you mean by "in an obvious position to know more about something...". Does being right qualify? It doesn't matter to me what your opinion is, or how strong it is, I'm not going to get any less confident that the Sun causes climate change.

    Add: Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
    From the very article you linked:
    Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

    His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

    "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

    Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    This one is also about Abdussamatov's work (which incidentally makes physical assumptions about CO2 that seem like circular reasoning).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    This is the best article of the batch, I have seem similar work, but it is not clear to me that if they dealt with the "fingerprint" data of 2006 (Allen, M.R., et al. (2006). "Quantifying Anthropogenic Influence on Recent near-Surface Temperature Change." Surveys in Geophysics 27: 491-544 [doi:10.1007/s10712-006-9011-6].) that confirmed Benjamin Santer's predictions.

    This is the type of thing, I like to see, someone else, years later confirmed Santer's models. When the same research group does both, I remain skeptical.

    Again, Khabibullo Abdusamatov and company.

    Jack, are you a climate scientist, or a scientist of any sort? If not, what is the reason for not accepting the majority opinion in a field that is not yours? The burden of proof is on the contrarian. If you were doing research yourself, and comming to a conclusion yourself because you needed it for something, I would understand. I respect many of the contrarian scientists (assuming thier funding isn't suspect) because they keep things honest.

    In short, why do you care so much, as to proving global warming a "scam."

    Like I've said it is really complicated. It is not my field. The American Institute of Physics has a rather comprehensive history on climate change. It addresses a variety of theories (some of which are recycled sometimes).

    Climate Change: Discovery of Global Warming

    Specifically on global warming:
    The Modern Temperature Trend

    On an (older) solar irradiation theory:
    Changing Sun, Changing Climate

    And here is their take on CO2:
    The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

    I trust the AIP for plenty of other matters. This is not my field, so I stick with the majority opinion. If they are wrong, it will reveal itself. There is no "conspiracy" in the scientific community. I generally ignore the Al Gore types.

    Besides, as far as affecting policy (which is the only reason I care to form an opinon on the matter of "global warming"):
    (1)it is better safe than sorry
    (2)all else being equal, conserving energy is good design policy in any system
    (3)pollution has other ill effects that are uniquivicable, and
    (4)majority scientific opinon is pro-climate change with some strong indications of it being man made.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Yes, I read those articles, I realize it's not accepted...If it were accepted, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    I care because I despise incorrectness--namely incorrectness which becomes popular, and especially when it's forced down peoples throats. I'm not a scientist in that I don't do research myself, but I'm interested in many scientific subjects. I know enough to say with certainty that Science Is Not A Popularity Contest.

    1. It isn't "better safe than sorry" in this case, if for no other reason than [to paraphrase the recent Penn & Teller's BS] the developing world can't afford power if CO2 is heavily regulated. TIA.

    2. Removing an energy source from your options is not conserving energy. Fossil fuels are finite anyway.

    3. True. Debate those, not global warming.

    4. The debatability of that is, in a way, the point of this discussion. I don't claim to be knowledgeable enough about climate science to take a stand like this on my own. The more I read the more I'm convinced that the old warming theories are wrong. I'm not alone by any means. More scientists are on the "natural warming" side than a few years ago; there's no indication that trend will change. Some individual scientists have apparently switched sides as well.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    I'll let this review of Unstoppable Global Warming speak for me so I get to shut up. I agree with it, and it says more than I could (or would like to).

    Unstoppable Global Warming & Michael Crichton

    That is all.

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Yes, I read those articles, I realize it's not accepted...If it were accepted, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    I care because I despise incorrectness--namely incorrectness which becomes popular, and especially when it's forced down peoples throats. I'm not a scientist in that I don't do research myself, but I'm interested in many scientific subjects. I know enough to say with certainty that Science Is Not A Popularity Contest.

    Fair enough. I was just curious. Based on boredom, insomnia, and this thread, I did some more digging myself, and there are some seemingly reputable sources (at first glance) that pokes a rather big holes (in the form of software errors) in the "hockey stick" data (which was among the most compelling data proving warming).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    1. It isn't "better safe than sorry" in this case, if for no other reason than [to paraphrase the recent Penn & Teller's BS] the developing world can't afford power if CO2 is heavily regulated. TIA.
    Well I am fairly optimistic in the world's technologists, engineers, and scientists in finding alternatives, but I am severly biased in this being an engineer. If we do find alternatices, then this is still fairly safe, perhaps we misplaced a few resources, but not really a big deal.

    If no alternative is found, well we can't fault the deveoping world from faollowing the same path as the west. If this leads to the "abrupt climate change" scenarios some propose, then we have a lot to be "sorry" for.

    That's what I meant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    2. Removing an energy source from your options is not conserving energy. Fossil fuels are finite anyway.
    "Not using" the fossil fuels would be "conserving" them. That seemed like it would be obvious. Perhaps we've run into semantics.

    In addition, gettting good gas milage, not wasting electricity, and conserving resources just seem like generally good ideas (weather or not global warming is real)

    National energy independence, and simply saving money, are also good reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    3. True. Debate those, not global warming.
    I agree with this. Perhaps we could denounce the ill effects of pollution in another thread. But this seems to be universally accepted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    4. The debatability of that is, in a way, the point of this discussion. I don't claim to be knowledgeable enough about climate science to take a stand like this on my own. The more I read the more I'm convinced that the old warming theories are wrong. I'm not alone by any means. More scientists are on the "natural warming" side than a few years ago; there's no indication that trend will change. Some individual scientists have apparently switched sides as well.
    Well, there are always contrarians. There are poeple who still say the earth is flat, and that ESP and UFOs exist (not saying that denying global warming puts people in the same league). Just saying that pointing to scientists who support particular views is not hard. There were people who didn't accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics(including Einstien) for a long time (probably still many).

    Still, unless I have enough motivation to get all the details, I accept current scientific consensus. That is (at the moment), pro-climate change, created by humans.

    If there is some doubt that the accepted scientific viewpoint is pro Anthropogenic Global Warming:

    The Royal Society of the UK has something for the public:
    Climate change controversies: a simple guide

    Regarding various petitions, and lists:
    Lists of skeptical scientists
    There have frequently been lists of scientists published who are skeptical of AGW. For example, Senator Inhofe once publised a list of 400 "prominent scientists disputing man-made global warming claims". Among these 400 "prominent scientists":



    84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.

    49 are retired

    44 are television weathermen

    20 are economists

    70 have no apparent expertise in climate science

    Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.



    Even if every name on the list were a climate scientist, there are approximately 20,000 climate scientists in the American Geophysical Union, so 400 would be rougly 2% of the climate scientist population. And this disregards the fact that most of the names on Inhofe's list are not climate scientists. In short, Inhofe's list essentially shows that less than 1% of climate scientists are skeptical of AGW.



    Another frequently cited list is the Oregon Petition, which recently published a second version of their list. The fact that they created an entirely new version rather than continuing to add to their original list raises some questions. The reason for the abandonment of the original list was that many signatures were found to be fraudulent.



    "Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."



    The original version contained approximately 17,000 signatures and the newly released version contains 31,000 signatures. However, it's important to note that in addition to the apparent ease of adding false signatures to this list, the only requirement of signatories is to have any kind of college science degree. In other words, a guy who got a bachelor's degree in biology 40 years ago and knows absolutely nothing about global warming can sign the Oregon Petition.



    Even disregarding the obviously weak signature criteria, consider the fact that in the USA there are tens of millions of people with bachelor's (or better) degrees in science. If just 10% of the US population has such a degree (according to the US census, 25% of Americans have a bachelor's degree or better), then the 31,000 names on the Oregon Petition make up ~0.1% of the pool of possible signatories. So what exactly is one-tenth of one percent supposed to prove?



    Essentially the only purpose of these lists is to confuse people into thinking there is no consensus on the subject, because 400 and 31,000 sound like large numbers. In reality, even disregarding the many flaws with these lists, these are fractions of a percent of their respective populations.
    source:Global Warming Skepticism - Huddler's Green Home Community
    I realize that greenhome has their own agenda, but it helps put the lists in perspective.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  9. #59

    Default

    Keep in mind the recent growing evidence of "global dimming". This new phenomonen has greatly reduced the impact of global warming - which muffles the severity of the link of CO2 rise and temp increase.

    If we got rid of the visible air pollution that blocks 8 to 18% of the sun's energy, the climate models would be significantly more severe and catastrophic.

  10. #60
    Senior Member Anonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanlittlechimp View Post
    Keep in mind the recent growing evidence of "global dimming". This new phenomonen has greatly reduced the impact of global warming - which muffles the severity of the link of CO2 rise and temp increase.

    If we got rid of the visible air pollution that blocks 8 to 18% of the sun's energy, the climate models would be significantly more severe and catastrophic.
    How recent? According to this article, published this April, it's brightening up again.

    Asian dimming

    It's a different story in other parts of the world. Previous research led by Padma Kumari of the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology had shown that India became less sunny, starting in the 1980s as its industrial activity increased. The latest data shows the Indian "solar dimming" is continuing.

    In China, the situation is slightly different. Wild's data shows that the country was dimming already in the 1980s, but then the smog levelled off in the 1990s. This may have been because the country cleaned up its act for a bit, or could simply be the consequence of the nation's then economic downturn.

    Whether economic or environmental, whatever caused the dimming to level off in the 1990s is no longer there. Since 2000, overall the optical density of the air above China has risen dramatically an observation which correlates well with anecdotes of very low visibility in major Chinese cities.

    Wild reports dimming at 7 of 10 sites measuring solar radiation across China. Between 1990 and 2000, 7 of the 10 showed signs of brightening.

Similar Threads

  1. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  2. Hypothetical and vague solution to global warming/energy crisis
    By Evan in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 09:32 PM
  3. Socialism posts (moved from Global Warming.)
    By Anonymous in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-21-2008, 08:28 PM
  4. Global Warming, Man made or Naturally caused (And other earth questions)
    By Didums in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 11:29 PM
  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