Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#376
#376
Rasputin_Vol said:
Exactly what I've been saying. Taking a 20-30 year snap shot in time and extrapolating anything on a 4 billion year old planet is crazy talk.

Until these guys are able to accurately predict what will happen from one season to the next (this winter was predicted to be a mild winter), then there is no way I can take them seriously. Hell... forget 3 months ahead of time. How about a 15 day forecast.
Click to expand...

We know a helluva lot about the climate of the last 700 million years. We know boatloads about the last million years.

And moreover, the fundamental process is just plain dead simple. CO2 absorbs heat radiation from the earth and emits it in all directions.

Even if for some :crazy: reason you don't believe the paleoclimate / model science (although science has brought you everything nice in your life), EVERYONE should understand we have a heat imbalance and stuff is going to happen.
 
#377
#377
fl0at said:
I think the point IP makes pretty frequently is that climate and weather are not the same thing.

As to the 20-30 year snap shot, they aren't even doing that, but for sake of argument, do you think you can take a 20-30 year snap shot of a given specie and be able to predict the likelihood, without any intervention, that the animal will go extinct? Even one that has been on the planet several hundred thousand years? Even with natural population flux of a given animal?
Click to expand...

If the species you are talking about are California condors, deer, wild hogs or something of a relatively small number, I would say yes. You have a finite sample size to study.

But the better comparison in you example would be like me spaying Lysol in my bathroom and killing a few bacteria in there, and using that data, trying to determine the survival of the staphylococcus worldwide.

Me killing a few million bacteria in my bathroom is only a fraction of the total population of staph bacteria. And 20-30 years of data is only a fraction of the time illustrated in a planet that has a 4 billion year history.
 
#378
#378
utgibbs said:
We know a helluva lot about the climate of the last 700 million years.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that point. We probably do know a lot about the last 700 million years.

But you will never convince me that based on 20-30 years of data, you can make a determination one way or the other about climate or weather.

If we had 1,000 years of data, I might be more willing to listen.

(30 years / 700 million years) X 100 = 4.28 X 10^-6 % of the sample size using your example. Not quite enough of a sample size to make bold decisions or predictions about anything.
 
#379
#379
Ras, how can you hate the planet so much?

once you accept what the real world has placed before your eyes, you'll feel right as rain. That 800 lb. go-rilla's weight will be off your shoulders, and your mind will be liberated and you'll think, and talk, in circles, just like utgibbs.
 
#380
#380
I'm still not hearing any real criticism of the science. "Too small of a snapshot" is a silly assertion in the face of hundreds of thousands of years of climate data.

1. There is empirical evidence the world is warming
2. The only possible driver of THIS warming trend at THIS time is anthropogenic greenhouse gases, particularly CO2.
3. The increase of CO2 is due to human activities, confirmed through isotopic analysis.


It's that simple, and no amount of "snapshot" talk counters those fundamental points. It is what it is. Those are facts. When people continue to ignore them and try to circumvent them, that's when scientists get irritated. The scientific method doesn't have a step where you ignore facts.
 
#381
#381
Rasputin_Vol said:
I'm not arguing that point. We probably do know a lot about the last 700 million years.

But you will never convince me that based on 20-30 years of data, you can make a determination one way or the other about climate or weather.

If we had 1,000 years of data, I might be more willing to listen.

(30 years / 700 million years) X 100 = 4.28 X 10^-6 % of the sample size using your example. Not quite enough of a sample size to make bold decisions or predictions about anything.
Click to expand...

What do you think climate is, if not 30 years of data? I'm curious.

And I asked you earlier to make your case. You said you had none. So what's up? You have one now?
 
#382
#382
Rasputin_Vol said:
But the better comparison in you example would be like me spaying Lysol in my bathroom and killing a few bacteria in there, and using that data, trying to determine the survival of the staphylococcus worldwide.
Click to expand...

Not a bad defense of position at face value, though there are a few non-issue things that don't relate to your point, so not worth discussing.

But as to your point, or at least my interpretation of your point, your comparison, to me, seems a bit off. If global climate change data and study was only occurring in one place (like your lysol study in your bathroom) and sweeping generations across the world were being made, then I think you would be on point. But it isn't, the study is being done globally.

Furthermore, if you were trying to determine the survivability of staph in a lysol rich environment, you would be more so on the right track, and your study would have merit.

As it stands, I don't think your conclusions are fitting your study, and the comparison to the two is off in that respect. Your bathroom study could be used to determine staph survivability in a lysol environment based on population size prior to lysol and population size post lysol.

And that is what essentially what climate study is doing: looking at pre-human / pre-industrial revolution and current-human / post-industrial revolution data.

If a strain of staph was found that thrived in lysol environments, it would be noted, but if it was an isolated incident, the global acknowledgement that staph is reduced by lysol would still stand.

There is just a small disconnect between your study and your conclusion, but other than that, your study would fit.
 
Last edited:
#383
#383
IPorange said:
What do you think climate is, if not 30 years of data? I'm curious.

And I asked you earlier to make your case. You said you had none. So what's up? You have one now?
Click to expand...


30 years out of 10,000 years or 700 million years is diddly squat. How hard is that to understand? The "noise" and variations on the graphs probably represent 30 years of data if we looked at the last 10,000 years.
 
#384
#384
gsvol, are you going to recant saying I was a liar about the 98% of climate scientists "believe" in global climate change? Or dispute it with some sort of evidence? I posted several links that showed that you were the one being inaccurate.
 
#385
#385
IPorange said:
gsvol, are you going to recant saying I was a liar about the 98% of climate scientists "believe" in global climate change? Or dispute it with some sort of evidence? I posted several links that showed that you were the one being inaccurate.
Click to expand...

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.

Marcus Aurelius
Click to expand...

.
 
#386
#386
Rasputin_Vol said:
30 years out of 10,000 years or 700 million years is diddly squat. How hard is that to understand? The "noise" and variations on the graphs probably represent 30 years of data if we looked at the last 10,000 years.
Click to expand...

What if I told you 30 years of weather patterns was the scientific definition of climate? It is, btw. How hard is THAT to understand?

How can you and others be so quick and fond to state the obvious that climate is always changing, but refuse to recognize that this fact would mean that there would have to be some sort of defined scale of time in which to measure "climate," as it is always in flux?

The data are very clear that climate is shifting at a comparatively radical rate in the middle of an interglacial period to an even warmer state, which is unprecedented and quite strange. All climate inputs but one show no reason for this. That one is greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2. The origin of that CO2 has been demonstrated to be us. It is pretty damn simple. Connect-the-dots simple, really.

Wallowing in ignorance by shouting about how old the Earth is and how short of a time we've been here also runs counter to the arguments of "there has been more CO2 before," "CO2 lags behind warming in the past," and "life did alright before." Clearly, the fact that this is happening now in the short time humans have been around shows that we as a species and in fact all current species are facing a new and unprecedented event. Even if this was a regular occurrence that had nothing to do with humans that occurred every 500,000 years, it would still be a pretty big deal. Any statement to the contrary is a deflection and a straw man.
 
#388
#388
That quote simply means don't side with the insane. It begs the question of whether the insane ones comprise the majority, or the minority.
 
#389
#389
images


images
 
Last edited:
#390
#390
utgibbs said:
Ah, but my observations coincide with what the scientists are saying. The scientists, in this case, are confirming my observations - giving context to what we are actually witnessing in real time.
Click to expand...

Why did the scientist switch from a message of "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Funny how it coincided the first three Winters of my lifetime that I had to shovel snow.
 
#391
#391
VolDad said:
Why did the scientist switch from a message of "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Funny how it coincided the first three Winters of my lifetime that I had to shovel snow.
Click to expand...

When do you think it changed? The term climate change has existed in the literature as it is used now since 1956. The two terms, while often used interchangeably, actually refer to slightly different things.

To use them in a sentence, global warming (that is, the increase of energy within the Earth system-- not necessarily an "everywhere is a bit hotter all the time" thing like most laymen interpret it) causes global climate change (changes in precipitation patterns, humidity, shifts in the boundaries of certain environments, etc.).

So unless you're 70 years old or more, it did not coincide with any 3 particular winters that you personally happened to have to shovel snow in.
 
Last edited:
#396
#396
IPorange said:
We all look the same to you, don't we?
Click to expand...

Nope. I was actually hoping to get some kind of explanation. I hear about this all the time and I just don't get it.

The truth be told, I would be behind nuclear and electric cars but I can't get behind doing things like artificially raising the price of energy.
 
#397
#397
azVolFan said:
Nope. I was actually hoping to get some kind of explanation. I hear about this all the time and I just don't get it.

The truth be told, I would be behind nuclear and electric cars but I can't get behind doing things like artificially raising the price of energy.
Click to expand...

This is an environmental issue, as the article says. Most of us see desert and think "wasteland." It's actually a vibrant and relatively undisturbed ecosystem that is sensitive to disturbance and not very quick to recover. The protesters are concerned for endangered and threatened species that live in the area of this proposed plant, and want to make sure proper environmental impact assessments are made (apparently the normal process was not followed, as the government of California gave preferential treatment since it was in their best interests). It isn't that this group doesn't like solar plants. It's that it wants to make sure that the baby isn't being thrown out with the bathwater for this particular project.
 
#398
#398
Random thoughts:

At 1 time the Earth was warm. Climate changed and the Earth became covered with ice. What unnatural event caused that?

At 1 time the Earth was covered in ice. Climate changed and the Earth became arm. What unnatural event caused that?

Global warming would cause increased evaporation which would cause increased rain which has a cooling effect.

History teaches of the industrial revolution; sky’s saturated in pollution, cities under a 24x7 dark haze. In my lifetime I have seen cities covered in smog; industrial smoke stacks belching pollutants unfettered into the sky. The air is cleaner now than it has been in the past.

I am less concerned about what my car puts into the atmosphere and more concerned about the deforestation of the rain forest. Q: Why do scientists spend their time shaking down industrialized nations over rain forest countries? A: They have the money.

How does climate change reconcile with increased solar activity?

.
 
Last edited:
#399
#399
VolDad said:
Random thoughts:

At 1 time the Earth was warm. Climate changed and the Earth became covered with ice. What unnatural event caused that?


Several natural things, but was initially triggered by Milankovitch Cycles, which are small wobbles in Earth's orbital path, that then set off a cascading series of positive feedbacks whose net effect lowered temperatures.




At 1 time the Earth was covered in ice. Climate changed and the Earth became arm. What unnatural event caused that?


Actually, the Earth has been covered in ice many times in the relatively recent geologic past. A very very long time ago (long before dinosaurs and such), we came perilously close to the "Iceball Earth" scenario, where a threshold of reflectance from ice fields covering a large portion of the globe would have resulted in a permanent planetary freeze. Luckily, this didn't occur. In the recent past, again Milankovitch Cycles played the dominant role.


Global warming would cause increased evaporation which would cause increased rain which has a cooling effect.
Global warming causes increased temperatures as well which increase the specific humidity required to reach 100 % saturation, which is necessary for rain. Thus, while net evaporation increases, cloud formation and precipitation become increasingly regionalized, leading to areas of drought. Areas of drought get lower environmental humidity and decreased reflectance from clouds, leading to spreading aridity and increased surface temps, as water is not available to evaporate and store energy as latent heat. Your premise isn't really accurate, at least not fully.



History teaches of the industrial revolution; sky’s saturated in pollution, cities under a 24x7 dark haze. In my lifetime I have seen cities covered in smog; industrial smoke stacks belching pollutants unfettered into the sky. The air is cleaner now than it has been in the past.

This is true to an extent. There are less sulphates and smog particles today than in the recent past in the US and Europe. However, sulphates have a cooling effect anyway, and the greenhouse gasses such as CO2 are not visible. Alas, the US and Europe are only one small part of the world. China is belching out pollutants like there's no tomorrow, India is pretty lax on emission rules out of poverty, and Africa is basically unregulated. That is most of the world's population, and they are rapidly industrializing.



I am less concerned about what my car puts into the atmosphere and more concerned about the deforestation of the rain forest. Q: Why do scientists spend their time shaking down industrialized nations over rain forest countries? A: They have the money.


The reason why more focus is put on industrialized nations is not as cynical as you think. How do you tell a Brazilian farmer that he isn't allowed to burn another plot of rain forest after his old plot has been exhausted of nutrients in only a couple of years, and that he and his family must starve? How do you tell impoverished people barely scraping by to stop scraping? Also, where can better techniques and technology be implemented- a third world hell hole or an industrialized society with a surplus of resources?
Click to expand...

Targeted responses.
 
#400
#400
VolDad said:
Random thoughts:

At 1 time the Earth was warm. Climate changed and the Earth became covered with ice. What unnatural event caused that?

At 1 time the Earth was covered in ice. Climate changed and the Earth became arm. What unnatural event caused that?

Global warming would cause increased evaporation which would cause increased rain which has a cooling effect.

History teaches of the industrial revolution; sky’s saturated in pollution, cities under a 24x7 dark haze. In my lifetime I have seen cities covered in smog; industrial smoke stacks belching pollutants unfettered into the sky. The air is cleaner now than it has been in the past.

I am less concerned about what my car puts into the atmosphere and more concerned about the deforestation of the rain forest. Q: Why do scientists spend their time shaking down industrialized nations over rain forest countries? A: They have the money.

How does climate change reconcile with increased solar activity?

.
Click to expand...

Reason for Snowball Earth thaw: Natural carbon cycle was arrested. Volcanic activity - over aeons - pumped CO2 into atmosphere, but no oceans to suck it up (the ocean is a tremendous carbon sink, HOWEVER, it almost always exchanges at wave breaks. The North Sea, thanks to its stratified waters, exchanges 20% of the 90GtC of the ocean to atmosphere carbon dioxide). There was no rocks exposed to weather it. Life was at a low, low ebb. Runaway greenhouse effect melts ice. Result: Cambrian Explosion.

Reason for Eocene decline of CO2 levels: the consensus is building around the fact that India rammed Asia 55 million years ago and made the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau. Additional weathering took CO2 down to the pre-industrial range (over eons and aeons).

Clean air: you have (and those aerosols contributed to global cooling). Unfortunately, CO2 spends about 100 years in the atmosphere before getting pulled into the sink. Methane is better, about a decade. We've been pumping A LOT more CO2 into the atmosphere than we ever pumped SO2. Those aerosols have lifetimes of weeks in the atmosphere. Mt Pinatubo, the largest volcanic eruption in the 20th century, shot material into the stratosphere. The effects were gone within two years.

I am concerned about the rainforest not only because a tremendous carbon sink is being put into the atmosphere, but I can barely contemplate the loss of biodiversity which has already occured. For every 10-fold decrease of habitat you lose half the species that habitat supported. We're losing no fewer than 74 species a day. But, as IP says, how do you tell people scraping by to get bent? Our debt is FAR, FAR higher anyway.

Hope this helps. :hi:
 
Last edited:
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top