Climate Change (fka man-made global warming)
And no matter how snippy anyone gets in this conversation, it will never make the science behind the absolutist statements of these TOP SCIENTISTS valid.
And that really can't be argued. There are exact rules to science, and these TOP SCIENTISTS aren't following them.
Edited By GORDON on 1151523717
And that really can't be argued. There are exact rules to science, and these TOP SCIENTISTS aren't following them.
Edited By GORDON on 1151523717
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
General agreement (consensus) is all that has ever been claimed, not "all"Now, now, if you can claim with a straight face that "all leading scientists agree" then you have to admit that the "the Republican majority on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works" is enough to be able to claim that "all leading Senators agree". Both speak just to the opinions of a key group and ignore the rest.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
I admit, he never uses the specific word "all", but it sure does seem to me that he's talking about more than just a "general consensus".
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot. Period.
There was a good rebuttal of that Yahoo article on one of the .gov pages. The main scientist they quoted is an activist with his hand out. They pointed out other problems with the article as well.
Oops. I see later you quoted that article.
New storm spots on Jupiter.
Next topic...
Edited By Vince on 1151541147
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Well, you started with whether or not I claimed something... then went to Gore's statements, which I've already labeled as retarded.I admit, he never uses the specific word "all", but it sure does seem to me that he's talking about more than just a "general consensus".Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
Again, I'm not debating Gore's words. I don't care.
Well, let's try this:
Sam/Gordon:
a) Do you think humans are capable of having a large enough influence (doing current activities and their rate of growth; no nuclear bombs, etc) to affect the environment in the ways represented by global warming?
b) Do you think humans are, to some significant extent, altering the atmosphere and making the Earth warmer than it would have been without human activities?
c) Do you think it's possible for humans to alter the environment enough to cause either irreparable or sever harm to the planet that could cause famines, increased disease, etc?
d) Do you think that companies/humans should reduce their environmental impact in order to minimize the possibility that we are altering the Earth's climate/atmosphere?
It's not me, it's someone else.
Ah, my apologies, with your wording I thought you were saying that no one (of any consequence) was stating that it was all scientists, rather than you yourself. I misunderstood (although, if you do want to discuss Gore he was on the Daily Show last night and said even crazier things than he has previously).
Oh, and you are Sam now, not me. You talking to yourself?
a) I've seen no evidence of such. Lets put aside for the moment the fact that I'm not convinced that "greenhouse gasses" can be linked to global warming and take it as a given for a moment. We as humans are reputed to be releasing around 24 billion tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere each year. Mount Etna, an average-sized average-activity volcano in Italy pours out about 9 billion tons a year of greenhouse gasses when it errupts. There are 286 active volcanos around the world today. That would imply that - on average - that's around 2,500 billion tons a year of greenhouse gasses that the earth itself is pouring into the skies. And we're dreadfully concerned about raising that total by less than 1%?
b) Perhaps to an extent of less than 1%, again assuming that "greenhouse gasses" can be responsible for such changes. Although that's a pretty small amount, and probably within the boundaries of fluctuation in volcanic sources on an annual basis.
c) Here I have different definitions than you. I wouldn't consider changes strong enough to cause famines or increased disease to necessarily be severe changes or irriversable. Hell, if there were a year in which the global rainfall were to be at the low end of it's typical average, we could have global crop failures just from that extreme but perfectly possible hapenstance within the current range of climate fluctuations, no massive changes required. Regardless, the climate changes and life adapts, whether mankind is here or not. It's happened throughout the history of the Earth, to degrees much much larger than even the most severe doomsayers are proposing. Hell, just a few billion years ago oxygen was extrememly toxic to the vast majority of life on this planet, and now it's essential to the vast majority of life. That's quite a change, but I don't hear anyone moaning about all this deadly oxygen we've got in our atmosphere these days. However, all that aside, if you consider human life to be the most important thing on the Earth and had taken your points a) and b) at full face value, then I can see where you would make this sort of statement, yes.
d) If reasonably strong scientific evidence that supports your first three points ever comes forth, then I could perhaps be persuaded that this would be a needed consideration, yes. However we aren't there yet. So far the changes to the Earth's climate are well within it's historical variations, not only in terms of annual temperature but also in terms of the rate of change of that temperature. I've not seen any evidence of any sort to indicate any sort of "crisis" beyond that needed to get Democrats elected to office and get more ad sales on "we're all going to die" television shows. From the information I have at hand, everyone seems to be pretty much either insane or manipulating public perception for their own gain.
I dont' really fault your logic. I just don't know where you get those whacky premises.
Edited By TPRJones on 1151596080
Oh, and you are Sam now, not me. You talking to yourself?
a) I've seen no evidence of such. Lets put aside for the moment the fact that I'm not convinced that "greenhouse gasses" can be linked to global warming and take it as a given for a moment. We as humans are reputed to be releasing around 24 billion tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere each year. Mount Etna, an average-sized average-activity volcano in Italy pours out about 9 billion tons a year of greenhouse gasses when it errupts. There are 286 active volcanos around the world today. That would imply that - on average - that's around 2,500 billion tons a year of greenhouse gasses that the earth itself is pouring into the skies. And we're dreadfully concerned about raising that total by less than 1%?
b) Perhaps to an extent of less than 1%, again assuming that "greenhouse gasses" can be responsible for such changes. Although that's a pretty small amount, and probably within the boundaries of fluctuation in volcanic sources on an annual basis.
c) Here I have different definitions than you. I wouldn't consider changes strong enough to cause famines or increased disease to necessarily be severe changes or irriversable. Hell, if there were a year in which the global rainfall were to be at the low end of it's typical average, we could have global crop failures just from that extreme but perfectly possible hapenstance within the current range of climate fluctuations, no massive changes required. Regardless, the climate changes and life adapts, whether mankind is here or not. It's happened throughout the history of the Earth, to degrees much much larger than even the most severe doomsayers are proposing. Hell, just a few billion years ago oxygen was extrememly toxic to the vast majority of life on this planet, and now it's essential to the vast majority of life. That's quite a change, but I don't hear anyone moaning about all this deadly oxygen we've got in our atmosphere these days. However, all that aside, if you consider human life to be the most important thing on the Earth and had taken your points a) and b) at full face value, then I can see where you would make this sort of statement, yes.
d) If reasonably strong scientific evidence that supports your first three points ever comes forth, then I could perhaps be persuaded that this would be a needed consideration, yes. However we aren't there yet. So far the changes to the Earth's climate are well within it's historical variations, not only in terms of annual temperature but also in terms of the rate of change of that temperature. I've not seen any evidence of any sort to indicate any sort of "crisis" beyond that needed to get Democrats elected to office and get more ad sales on "we're all going to die" television shows. From the information I have at hand, everyone seems to be pretty much either insane or manipulating public perception for their own gain.
I dont' really fault your logic. I just don't know where you get those whacky premises.
Edited By TPRJones on 1151596080
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Sam = TPR has apparently been hard-wired into my brain. Mebbe it will change next time I get podded.
1) Can you give me a source for the volcano data?
This one says 3% of CO2 from volcanoes.
This one says "uncertain", but around 0.5-1.0%
This graphs shows CO2 concentration in the air, over time.
Clearly something is causing a change in CO2 concentrations?
2) See 1.
3) Yeah, I'm more concerned about humans than other animals... just assumed we all felt that way
4) See 1.
1) Can you give me a source for the volcano data?
This one says 3% of CO2 from volcanoes.
This one says "uncertain", but around 0.5-1.0%
This graphs shows CO2 concentration in the air, over time.
Clearly something is causing a change in CO2 concentrations?
2) See 1.
3) Yeah, I'm more concerned about humans than other animals... just assumed we all felt that way
4) See 1.
It's not me, it's someone else.
The 9 billion came from memory, the 286 is easy to find in a yahoo search. I'll look tonight and see if I can find a source on that 9 billion and piece together something concrete for you.
Although, it looks like - according to figures I drilled to through the Kilauea link in the second source you sited - it may be I've misremembered billion for million. But it looks like Kilauea puts out enough greenhouse gasses on it's own to make up most of the total of Gerlich's apparently way too conservative estimate in that second link.
Something doesn't add up here, both on my side and on the links for your side. More math tonight.
Although, it looks like - according to figures I drilled to through the Kilauea link in the second source you sited - it may be I've misremembered billion for million. But it looks like Kilauea puts out enough greenhouse gasses on it's own to make up most of the total of Gerlich's apparently way too conservative estimate in that second link.
Something doesn't add up here, both on my side and on the links for your side. More math tonight.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Well, here's some decent CO2 data. From 1997.
Oceans: 90
Vegetation Decay: 30
Plant/Animal respiration: 30
Human activities: 7
So 4.6% comes from humans.
(all #s billion of metric tons)
I haven't found SOx, NOx, Methane, etc information. Or more recent human anthropogenic CO2 production #s.
Oceans: 90
Vegetation Decay: 30
Plant/Animal respiration: 30
Human activities: 7
So 4.6% comes from humans.
(all #s billion of metric tons)
I haven't found SOx, NOx, Methane, etc information. Or more recent human anthropogenic CO2 production #s.
It's not me, it's someone else.
I'm not trying to be funny, but I thought cow farts were a huge factor in air pollution and damage to the ozone...?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Along with the new storm spots surfacing on Jupiter, the ice caps on mars are melting. This article is from 4 years back.
The lack of objectivity on the issues of earth's global warming is astounding.
The lack of objectivity on the issues of earth's global warming is astounding.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Methane #sI'm not trying to be funny, but I thought cow farts were a huge factor in air pollution and damage to the ozone...?
Natural: 290
Anthropogenic: 330
(Tg/yr) (Tetragrams?)
Couldn't find good #s for cows.
It's not me, it's someone else.
First of all let me preface my answers with the fact that you're asking yes/no questions. That tells me you're asking if I'm 100% positive one way or another... and as I've already said, as the science isn't anywhere near complete, anyone who is 100% certain either way on this subject is a crackpot and a poor scientist.Well, let's try this:
Sam/Gordon:
a) Do you think humans are capable of having a large enough influence (doing current activities and their rate of growth; no nuclear bombs, etc) to affect the environment in the ways represented by global warming?
b) Do you think humans are, to some significant extent, altering the atmosphere and making the Earth warmer than it would have been without human activities?
c) Do you think it's possible for humans to alter the environment enough to cause either irreparable or sever harm to the planet that could cause famines, increased disease, etc?
d) Do you think that companies/humans should reduce their environmental impact in order to minimize the possibility that we are altering the Earth's climate/atmosphere?
So, my answers:
a) No, I don't really think humans are capable of causing an ice age, drought, cats and dogs living together, etc at the current rate of industrial production/burning of fossil fuels. I mean, I could be wrong, but my answer is probably not. If you want the "why" of my answer answered, then ask new questions.
b) Probably not, but possibly. But probably not.
c) If I answered probably not to a, then I have to answer probably not to this question. And the worst man-affectable catalyst for the transmission of disease are the environmentalists who got DDT banned in the 70's with little scientific evidence and lots of propaganda. The number of deaths from malaria directly attributed to the ban of mosquito-killing DDT was numbered in the millions, last time I checked.
d) Sure, voluntarily. No harm in being cautious as long as you can do so without going out of business.
++++++++++
Now, I've skimmed through lots of talk about CO2 after these questions were posed. Is someone implying that CO2, which used to be in the atmosphere anyway before being locked into the long carbon chains of fossil fuels, is a absolute direct indicator/cause of global warming?
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Okay, Catt, I studied that first site you linked and found this table. I'm willing to accept data from this source. I used a little basic analysis, and presuming that the increase has been a smooth geometric progression (a reasonable assumption for basic analysis, as even if the actual progression is spikey this sort of analysis should hit the averages fairly well) and came up with this:
The purple is nature (if we assume nature is a constant, which I'm not willing to accept as a given considering that CO2 levels have been changing on their own since forever ... but lets assume it for the moment for simplicity, or at the very least that the amount of change due to nature may be a very small percentage of the observed change and thus negligable) and the blue is the increase since the beginning of industrialization (i.e. mankind). I've also extended out the curve to 2050. The red lines are 1992 (the X(t) source data from the chart) and today.
One thing that's fairly clear is that when it comes to the main greenhouse gases, CO2 levels are the largest factor by far. So for simple analysis like this the rest can be ignored.
Clearly my prior computations based on volcanic information were in error. But also it's clear that some of the sources that claim that mankind is pumping out huge amounts in comparrison to the amounts nature is responsible for (again, providing that nature is a constant or nearly so) are also in error. The truth is somewhere between the two extremes, which I guess is pretty common in political debates.
So, I will accept that mankind is indeed producing not insignifigant amounts of greenhouse gasses. Not nearly as much as some claim, but far more than I was given to understand was the case. Essentially, I'm now satisfied and willing to meet you halfway on this point.
So, on to the next arguement: provided that CO2 is the bulk of this, what do you say to the fact that CO2 levels have been much much higher way back in history than even my projected 2050, yet here the Earth is, somehow not being the thick and soupy boiling hell that Venus is?
The purple is nature (if we assume nature is a constant, which I'm not willing to accept as a given considering that CO2 levels have been changing on their own since forever ... but lets assume it for the moment for simplicity, or at the very least that the amount of change due to nature may be a very small percentage of the observed change and thus negligable) and the blue is the increase since the beginning of industrialization (i.e. mankind). I've also extended out the curve to 2050. The red lines are 1992 (the X(t) source data from the chart) and today.
One thing that's fairly clear is that when it comes to the main greenhouse gases, CO2 levels are the largest factor by far. So for simple analysis like this the rest can be ignored.
Clearly my prior computations based on volcanic information were in error. But also it's clear that some of the sources that claim that mankind is pumping out huge amounts in comparrison to the amounts nature is responsible for (again, providing that nature is a constant or nearly so) are also in error. The truth is somewhere between the two extremes, which I guess is pretty common in political debates.
So, I will accept that mankind is indeed producing not insignifigant amounts of greenhouse gasses. Not nearly as much as some claim, but far more than I was given to understand was the case. Essentially, I'm now satisfied and willing to meet you halfway on this point.
So, on to the next arguement: provided that CO2 is the bulk of this, what do you say to the fact that CO2 levels have been much much higher way back in history than even my projected 2050, yet here the Earth is, somehow not being the thick and soupy boiling hell that Venus is?
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Agreed, then.So, I will accept that mankind is indeed producing not insignifigant amounts of greenhouse gasses. Not nearly as much as some claim, but far more than I was given to understand was the case. Essentially, I'm now satisfied and willing to meet you halfway on this point.
So, on to the next arguement: provided that CO2 is the bulk of this, what do you say to the fact that CO2 levels have been much much higher way back in history than even my projected 2050, yet here the Earth is, somehow not being the thick and soupy boiling hell that Venus is?
This has been hard to find data on.
As far as I can tell form this reading, 1) it's hard to say for sure, 2) processes over millions of years have worked to reduce CO2 over time and 3) the rates of absorption tend to be very slow, allowing for the planet to adapt more easily and 4) I dont have any good idea for the temperature during these times.
At any rate, I think the key takeaway is that it takes time for the Earth to react to things. And while I'm sure she'll go on long after us no matter what we do, I'm more concerned with keeping humans around. Thus, I think we should tread as lightly ("Burnest thine coal, but keepest thy smoke." from America II's Constitution) as possible.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Come on now, you're not in high school any more. I didn't think I had to explain out the whole "please discuss why blah blah blah"First of all let me preface my answers with the fact that you're asking yes/no questions. That tells me you're asking if I'm 100% positive one way or another...
Sure, voluntarily. No harm in being cautious as long as you can do so without going out of business.
Well, the environment is, unfortunately, a public good. As such, there is never economic incentive at the micro level to drive the types of change that would control emissions, protect you from greenhouse emissions or mercury, etc.
Proposed America II Constitution states: "Burnest thine coal, but keepest thy smoke." How would/could this be done? How would it be implemented in America I?
It's not me, it's someone else.
Immediately, and without dismanteling the economy? I can't see how.
There is no magic "alternative fuel" out there waiting to be discovered. My last biology professor said we needed to go to a hydrotgen economy. I asked him where all that hydrogen was going to come from. He said, "we need to build massive geothermal power generation facilities in Yellowstone."
Oooooooooooooookay.
There is no magic "alternative fuel" out there waiting to be discovered. My last biology professor said we needed to go to a hydrotgen economy. I asked him where all that hydrogen was going to come from. He said, "we need to build massive geothermal power generation facilities in Yellowstone."
Oooooooooooooookay.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."