Mal4Prez nails the climate change debate...
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 04:17
VIEWED: 12089
PAGE 1 of 2
Just part of an excellent rant in another thread that I thought deserved a thread of its own:
Quote:
2. I was just reading about Perry and his "skepticism" of climate change, which reminded me of old threads on RWED. Otherwise intelligent-seeming posters stated their belief that scientists make all this up so they can get funding.
Ok, wait... Must get this off my chest...
Scientists falsify their research for money, but Big Oil and its politician leeches (Perry) would never do such a thing?
Scientists who have tenured jobs falsify their research for money, but Big Oil, with employment and income that depends solely on profit, would never do such a thing?
Scientists who work for educational institutions falsify their research for money, but Big Oil which exists purely to make a profit would never do such a thing?
Scientists who might make 100K or so a year falsify their research for money, but Big Oil controlled by managers/stock holders with million dollar bonuses/incomes funded by company profit would never do such a thing?
Scientists who must submit their work to peer-reviewed journals falsify their research for money, but Big Oil that only needs to stand up to the rigorous standards of Faux news would never do such a thing?
BTW, which science classes did Perry take in college? How were his grades?
Talk about stupid.
I really wish Perry would hold a town hall meeting in my town, and give me the mic.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's been proven that there's a lot of bad science involved in the climate change scam. And the E.Anglia e-mails prove that results have been cooked, and language crafted, to slant the data towards a preconceived conclusion. Add to the fact that many ( almost all ) scientist get their funding from where ? Govt. The same govt which is promoting a particular political agenda is funding the science which, gosh almighty, just HAPPENS to agree w/ the stated agenda.
What are the odds?
The climate has never STOPPED changing on this planet. Mankind's involvement in it all, amounts to nothing.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, if my post starts a thread, I get to define a rule: it shall not be taken over by back and forths with he who posts the same long ago refuted shit with absolutely no supporting facts or links. You all know what I mean.
If this thread doesn't become another yawn-fest of prove-Rappy-wrong, I'll finally get down to posting pictures I took of a museum exhibit in Fairbanks, AK last summer. (It took me this long to find the cable and connect to my camera.) Very disturbing images and data - yes DATA - about changes in temperature and glacier size up there.
I'd do it now, but I'm heading out the door. Should have time this afternoon.
BTW, thank you KPO. I feel the compliment!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What's already been decided? You're not pulling the AlGore card, and claiming that the science is settled, are you ?
ROFLMAO !!!!!
Some glaciers recede, others advance. Hardly a case being made for global warming / climate change.
But who doesn't like pretty pictures, right ? 
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
OK, if my post starts a thread, I get to define a rule: it shall not be taken over by back and forths with he who posts the same long ago refuted shit with absolutely no supporting facts or links. You all know what I mean.
If this thread doesn't become another yawn-fest of prove-Rappy-wrong, I'll finally get down to posting pictures I took of a museum exhibit in Fairbanks, AK last summer. (It took me this long to find the cable and connect to my camera.) Very disturbing images and data - yes DATA - about changes in temperature and glacier size up there.
I'd do it now, but I'm heading out the door. Should have time this afternoon.
BTW, thank you KPO. I feel the compliment!
I would love to see that.
Oh, and I will be totally ignoring Raptor in this thread. I hope everyone else does as well.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Oh, and I will be totally ignoring Raptor in this thread. I hope everyone else does as well.
As you wish...
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I haven't been around a couple of days mostly because I can't find a thread worth responding to, there's so much bickering. News is slow, so I haven't found anything worth starting a thread with, either. But I'd love to see those photos, too. Looking forward to them.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
rappy, as in a lot of areas (economics, warfare, and statecraft) you are sadly out of your depth in the science of climate change. I suggest you look deeply into the REAL issues of East Anglia, which had nothgin to do with widespread fraud and didn't change the final result one whit.
Instead of relying on your right-wing sources to pre-digest your thoughts for you so you can eat them up and regurgitate them later... completely (you will notice) bypassing the brain, why don't you challenge yourself by doing some real digging and some real thinking?
I know you won't, and that's why I call you a flat-earther: someone who is so absofuckinglutely deluded that would deny the ocean if they were drowning in it.
Oh, and BTW, I noticed that back in the OTHER thread you couldn't defend a 23% tax rate (probably because you had not put more than 1 minute looking it up using google, and not more than 0.5 seconds into it thinking about whether it actually made any sense) so I agree that you are not worth responding to. If I wanted to listen to right-wing propaganda, I'd go to the AM radio. I'm here to talk to people, not idiots.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
rappy, as in a lot of areas (economics, warfare, and statecraft) you are sadly out of your depth in the science of climate change. I suggest you look deeply into the REAL issues of East Anglia, which had nothgin to do with widespread fraud and didn't change the final result one whit.
The fact that I don't buy into the spin from the Left is hardly evidence that I'm out of my depth. To the contrary, I'm more aware of this issue, and science in general, than your average joe/ jane citizen. A lot more. If anything, the lot on the Left remind me of the young earth creationists I use to debate, long ago. Mindless zealots, clinging to a empty belief system, all for the sole purpose of promoting a useless agenda.
Quote:
Instead of relying on your right-wing sources to pre-digest your thoughts for you so you can eat them up and regurgitate them later... completely (you will notice) bypassing the brain, why don't you challenge yourself by doing some real digging and some real thinking?
Yeah, 'real' thinking equates to that which agrees w/ your point of view. No thanks.
Quote:
I know you won't, and that's why I call you a flat-earther: someone who is so absofuckinglutely deluded that would deny the ocean if they were drowning in it.
An apt description of yourself, actually.
Quote:
Oh, and BTW, I noticed that back in the OTHER thread you couldn't defend a 23% tax rate (probably because you had not put more than 1 minute looking it up using google, and not more than 0.5 seconds into it thinking about whether it actually made any sense) so I agree that you are not worth responding to. If I wanted to listen to right-wing propaganda, I'd go to the AM radio. I'm here to talk to people, not idiots.
The FAIR Tax is the most researched and fact supported proposal out there. I don't know what you want me to do to " defend " it. I'll not bother with defending the lies and misrepresentations that the attackers ( both from the Left and Right ) have levied against the FAIR Tax, but why don't YOU take some of your own advice, and do some of your OWN research. And stop relying on the pre-digested thoughts and opinions others have crafted for YOU.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow! I'm away for six months or so.... and not one damn thing changes.
MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."
http://www.fireflytalk.com - Big Damn Podcast
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même troll.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, the last time little Rappy tried to have a thought, it was that the inhaler being taken off the market MUST be Obama's fault - just like everything else! A notion he clung to even after the FDA press release was posted citing the Montreal Protocol and the CFC propellant. You could almost see him beaming with pride 'cause > HE < figured the propellant MUST be absorbed. Except he figured wrong. No wonder he clings to other people's ideas - his own thinking has let him down so terribly. It goes awfully, horrendously wrong. And then he gets confused. And doesn't know what to think.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
OK, if my post starts a thread, I get to define a rule: it shall not be taken over by back and forths with he who posts the same long ago refuted shit with absolutely no supporting facts or links. You all know what I mean.
If this thread doesn't become another yawn-fest of prove-Rappy-wrong, I'll finally get down to posting pictures I took of a museum exhibit in Fairbanks, AK last summer. (It took me this long to find the cable and connect to my camera.) Very disturbing images and data - yes DATA - about changes in temperature and glacier size up there.
I'd do it now, but I'm heading out the door. Should have time this afternoon.
BTW, thank you KPO. I feel the compliment!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
Oh, and by the way M4P, if I didn't say it in the other thread, you DID nail this, well and truly. You nailed it like Martin Luther nailing his Ninety-Five Theses to the church door.
We don't see eye to eye on some things (a very few things, it seems), but as I've said before, you are 37 kinds of awesome.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
University of Alaska – Fairbanks Museum Exhibit, July 2010
Notes from mal4prez: I wasn’t allowed to use a flash in the museum, so the pictures are a bit blurry. The text will be hard to read, so I’ve typed it in, as well as the descriptions that were hanging on the walls next to the glacier photographs.
There were a lot more photographs in the exhibit, but not all of them came out well on my old camera. There’s enough here to get the point. I’ll put my comments in italics, though I’ll try not to make many.
And bear with me for a minute – I’ll likely have to do some picture resizing.
Shrinking Glaciers
Glaciers are valuable indicators of climate change because ice responds directly to temperature and precipitation. Repeat photos can dramatically capture the advance or retreat of glaciers.
Climate is the main factor affecting all glaciers. But not all glaciers behave the same. Over centuries, some tidewater glaciers (those that end at the ocean) go through a natural cycle of advance and retreat, independent of climate.
Glaciers in Alaska’s Brooks Range only retreat as a result of changes in climate. Aerial images and repeat photos show that all Brooks Range glaciers are shrinking. Some have disappeared entirely. Emphasis theirs.
Okpilak Glacier: photographed in 1907 by Ernest Leffingwell, 2007 by Matt Nolan
I didn’t photograph the caption of this one:
Unnamed glaciers, eastern Brooks Range. Attempts to repeat the entire old photo were hampered by bad weather. Individual repeat photographs from a helicopter show glaciers that are retreating. Photograph from 1950: Col-photo [?] collection, 2007 by Ken Tape
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Arctic and Beyond
When temperature and precipitation patterns change, so does the landscape. Repeat photos from Alaska’s Arctic tell a story of more shrubs and less ice.
Changes in the Arctic ultimately affect the heat balance of the entire earth. While polar regions have warmed quicker, the rest of the planet is not far behind. Changes here foreshadow changes elsewhere.
(smaller font) The total change in average annual temperature from 1951-2009 for the hemisphere (right) and from 1949-2009 for Alaska (below).
Note – the colorscale is
white: 0˚F
yellow: 0.36 – 0.9 ˚F
orange: 0.9 – 1.8 ˚F
dark orange: 1.8 – 3.6˚F
red: 3.6 - 7.2˚F
Fairbanks – Barrow Mean July temperature
from 1930 to today, vertical scale varies from 44˚F to 56˚F
Note the end of the graph to the left. The sharply upward turning orange line is the trend from the plot on the right. The rest of the graph on the left stretches the scale back 20,000 years. That’s to the last ice age. I could only get it in one picture from an angle. You can see how sharp the upturn is, and that the temperature is now hotter than it's been since the last ice age.
And how do they know temperatures going back 20,000 years? From a side board:
Discovering Past Temperature
Scientists sometimes use unusual methods. To learn about past climates, they have found tiny midge flies helpful.
Midge fly larvae live in lakes. As they change into adults they leave behind part of themselves in the sediment at the lake’s bottom. Scientists can take a core of lake sediment and date the mud layer by layer. There are many different species of midge flies, and some survive better than others at different temperatures. By sorting and counting the proportion of different midge species within a layer, the average summer temperature for a given time period can be estimated.
Other methods can also be used to find past temperatures. Core cores from ice sheets, scientists have learned about earth’s climate up to 700,000 years ago. The lake sediment method provides a more localized estimate of temperature.
At Burial Lake in Alaska’s Arctic, scientists have cored deep enough to reconstruct the temperature 20,000 years in to the past.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The exhibit addressed the past 100 years and the past 20,000 years. So how about further back? For that, see Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum by Ruddiman. I’ll sum up his findings here with a few figures. (I’ve posted this stuff before, twice I believe. But what the hell.)
True, the earth’s climate goes through natural cycles of ice ages. Ice cores and geological data show that earth has had at least 4 regular cycles 100,000 years or so in length. Each cycle has about 80,000 years of ice age with 20,000 year breaks for warm weather. We’re in one of those breaks right now.
That’s right - ice ages are the more common state of things. I hadn’t realized it, but there’s convincing evidence of it.
The ~100,000 year long cycles have been shown to correspond very well to orbital variations caused by the location of the other planets. When the Earth is in an orbit where it gets more intense summer sun at the northern latitudes, (so the orbit is highly elliptical and perihelion falls at the summer solstice), ice sheets in Canada, Alaska and Siberia melt enough in the summer that they shrink. Ice sheets draw back from the US and Europe and central Asia, the long ice age ends, and the short break begins.
Evidence: see the peaks at present day (far left), then at 120 kya (kya = 1000 years ago), 240 kya, 340 kya. These are peaks in temperature, atmospheric CO2, and atmospheric methane. This is all from Volstok Ice cores. Orbital variations (modeled) are on the bottom. There are some time shifts, likely due to error in aging the ice cores, but the pattern corresponds quite well with variations in heavy oxygen in the atmosphere – an indicator of temperature. That’s in the second to bottom plot.
And now from Ruddiman: methane levels and solar radiation at 65˚ North latitude, graph below. Hot sun = more methane in the atmosphere. Even before humans. But wait – what’s that happening at the far right. (Present day is to the right on this graph, opposite from the one above.) Why haven’t the methane levels fallen as solar radiation decreases? What has been different in this past 10,00 years that wasn’t around in the 200,00 years before?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And my last post:
The last end-of-ice-age happened about 20,000 years ago. Which means we’re due to go back under the ice sheets. At this point of the last 4 cycles, (geological evidence of this is described and referenced in Ruddiman’s book) ice was growing in northeast Canada. But it’s not this time. In fact, this cycle the glaciers are melting, disappearing completely. (See Fairbanks museum above.)
So again - what’s different this time? What’s happened during this break in the ice eras, over the last 20,000 years, that never happened before? What started 8000 years ago that might have affected CO2 levels?
And 5000 years ago that might have affected methane levels?
And if agriculture and rice irrigation did this, (which is how Ruddiman answers the 8000 and 5000 year ago questions) what could be the effect of pulling tons of carbon out of the earth and dumping it into the atmosphere in an extremely short time?
Enough to stop an ice age? Enough to throw off the natural cycles of the earth's climate?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hehe...
You and your environmentalist ways....
Reminds me of how I question every day if there was a god.
I wish I had your conviction.
I've never been so sure about anything so unpredictable and unprovable as what you're talking about in my life.
God, how I envy you. 
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm a pretty ardent environmentalist and I feel this particular issue is buried, and was decided in auraptor's favor.
I posted the relevant math here several times and tried to draw attention to the science so that we could actually debate it, but no one was at all interested in discussing the issue from a science perspective.
If I have to classify this one, I'll put it in the Alex Jones corner, something Pirate News probably already thought of: It's a form of panic-mongering to get the people to enact radical policy, much like the war on terror and other dubious dangers.
There are very real and damaging effects on the environment caused by humans. IMHO, this is not one of them. This is a distraction from the cause, much like animal rights, anti-nuclear power, etc.
The issues I feel represent a serious threat to life on earth, ourselves included, re: the environment are species loss; habitat loss; population depletion; deforestation; overfishing; pollution (air, water, earth); the contamination of our food with non-comestibles; environmental degradation done by radical mining practiced (mountaintop removal, fracking, the alberta-pipeline project) etc.
But the fractional change in co2, which is not caused by industrial emissions, is not having a deleterious effect on the planet. The change in weather patterns is also not all that remarkable, weather patterns change all the time.
This to me is like focusing on sharia law as a threat to american liberty while ignoring the patriot act, the war, gitmo, torture, habeas corpus, etc. etc. etc.
Focus, people.
Peace out.
ETA: Correlation doesn't prove causality. Even so, what would you rather have for a co2 level? Also, the ice age ended more recently than that, and no, we're not due for another one. It's not coming, actually. There is no end of the world here, but we could lose a lot of what we have if we don't stop and pay attention to the real world. I'm afraid this story is fantasy.
Consider the output of industrial co2, compared with the yearly intake and output of the planet. The co2 level is rising because of deforestation, even a cursory look at the math makes that obvious.
On the other hand, the co2 rise itself is not a threat. There's not really a strong historical correlation, in spite of those charts. Look longer term. Sure, if it got up into the thousands you might see a greenhouse effect. Not a deadly runaway burning planet, but a rise in temp. However, you can't get up into the thousands because there's not enough free carbon left on the Earth. it's all trapped in limestone as the result of aeons of microscopic shelfish.
Maybe in a few hundred million years, that could be a problem. I'm more worried about what could happen in the next 20 if we don't change our policies on forests, fishing, water and air pollution and our own exposure to toxics and the consumption of food substitutes.
One milliliter of TCE in your water can kill you. Doesn't it bother you that the president's energy plan currently calls for pouring a million gallons of it into your water supply? Yes, it's the evil corporations, yes, it's the evil govt., yes it's the evil republicans, yes, it's the evil democrats. It's the evil. Stop the evil. Don't fuss around with fantasyland. Deal with the real consequences.
IIRC, when I did the math on this one I estimated the annual consumption of carbon to be somewhere around 50 trillion tons. There isn't that much carbon of course. That's because it gets cycled through many times over.
If it seems like I'm belittling the issue, that's because I am. This is a science fiction translation of "the end is nigh."
The co2 consumption of photosynthesis is 2,000 times the total human industrial production. The reason co2 is rising is that we cut the consumption through environmental destruction. Ergo, it will continue to rise until the equation balances out. There's not really anything we can do about it, except stop destroying the planet. But no change in US fossil fuel consumption will have an effect
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Consider the output of industrial co2, compared with the yearly intake and output of the planet. The co2 level is rising because of deforestation, even a cursory look at the math makes that obvious.
So after agreeing with Rappy, you just threw him under the bus with that paragraph. That *IS* man-assisted global warming, right there. Or do you think those forests are chopping themselves down?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Consider the output of industrial co2, compared with the yearly intake and output of the planet. The co2 level is rising because of deforestation, even a cursory look at the math makes that obvious.
So after agreeing with Rappy, you just threw him under the bus with that paragraph. That *IS* man-assisted global warming, right there. Or do you think those forests are chopping themselves down?
That's probably my general political position anyway
We're wasting time on this, there are actual dangers, even environmental ones. I think Rap was trying to make the case that this argument has been discredited, which I think it has.
The danger is not that some small routine behavior of all humans is destroying the planet, but that massive impacts done by a handful of individuals can destroy massive parts of the planet.
There are lots of misdirected efforts, and TPTB are always trying to misdirect us more, giving us some shiny issue to fight over.
I get annoyed with this one because of the simple math. I'm probably not above using this to try to get people environmentally aware, but I don't want people who are already aware to waste their time on it. It's very much like the "threat of terrorism" or "war on drugs" sort of thing, it's just ignoring the real problem.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal4, thankx everso, that was very illuminating. Nothing I didn't know, but put out there in terms I could understand. Did you enjoy the trip? What's Fairbanks like, and what did you see?
I'm not getting into this "debate" because it isn't one. Those who believe, believe; those who don't, don't. Nothing will change their minds, and I don't think any of us will live long enough to find out for certain. Aside from the fact that even if it were to happen in YOUR lifetime (I'm certain not in mine), those who disbelieve still wouldn't, they'd find another "reason". So it's not a debate for me and hasn't been for a long time.
Nonetheless, I appreciate the facts you've presented. Wish I could wander that display myself, looks fascinating.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You do? Seems kind of a waste of time.
Reminds me of how I question every day if there was a god.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, it IS happening "in our lifetime". It's happening NOW. If you're not certain, it's because you're not looking.
Nothing will change their minds, and I don't think any of us will live long enough to find out for certain.
Greenland Ice Cap Melting Faster Than Ever
Quote:
ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2009) — Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112141311.htm Now, for those who think that this is "normal" - after all, there was a Norse settlement on Greenland, right? .... the ice sheet has been a stable geological feature for over 100,000 years. There has not been a melt like this in all of human (homo sapiens sapiens') existence. The last time the ice sheet reached a minimum was about 400,000 years ago... before the Neandertals, when Homo erectus was being transformed into Homo heidelbergensis.
www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5883/1622.abstract
King crabs invade Antartica
Quote:
Giant king crabs are invading the waters off the Antarctic Peninsula, which are warming with climate change, say[s]... Craig Smith, a professor of oceanography... "For the last 14 million years or so, these kinds of crabs have been excluded from the Antarctic shelf waters because it's too cold for them," said Smith. "But on the Antarctic Peninsula, the water is warming very rapidly."
www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/09/07/science-king-crabs-antarct
ica.html
Again, to put this in perspective, the last time that king crabs emerged onto the ice shelves..14 MILLION years ago... hominds were emerging from australopithecans. We hadn't even gotten to "homo" yet. And that was a long time ago! So we are seeing more than historic changes, and even more than prehistoric changes, we are seeing changes on a geologic timescale.
The question isn't whether the earth's climate changes. It does. There have been many changes; some due vulcanism, some to large meteor strikes, some due to solar output, others due to orbital variation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycleshttp://en.wikipedia.or
g/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
But just because there are several different causes for climatic shifts doesn't mean we can't be one of them. That's like saying that since you could have been shot, stabbed, smothered or crushed, I couldn't possibly have poisoned you. Where is the logic in that? The presence of other causes doesn't negate other possibility of yet one more. If you REALLY want to find out what the cause is, you have to look at the evidence, in detail. Something that our more flamboyant flat-Earthers avoid like the plague.
And IF it is happening.... and the evidence is incontrovertible that it is... can we stop it? Can we at least adapt to it?
Sadly, we are doing neither.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... I don't think any of us will live long enough to find out for certain."
I think you're optimistic. We already are experiencing the results of global warming and I think we will be at the point of 'OMG our systems are crashing down around us' crisis in a couple of decades.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting.
Mal4Prez, I think you and I read a similar study once about human agriculture and methane throwing off the natural ice-age cycle ten thousand years ago. The ten-thousand years ago thing was determined by the Milankovitch cycles.
The midge fly data suggests however that we are in a break period. Clearly there are more factors involved here than I initially thought. However, there might also be differences to be expected from using climate boring data from the north as compared to ice boring data from Antarctica, as land and ocean have different responses to cyclical temperature change, and the north pole has a lot of land around it (excepting the northern sea), while the south pole is surrounded by oceans (and has a continent with high albedo covered in ice).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is no question that the climate is changing. The question is how much of it is man's fault? The secondary question is what is man doing to add to it if it is partially man's fault? If we are adding to it at all it is through deforestation, that's how I feel, I guess I agree with DT really. The earth does this stuff, whether we have any part in it or not. I think what we should focus on is correcting the stuff we know is our fault, deforestation and all the stuff that DT mentioned with bad mining techniques, nonsustainable practices etc. Whether we play a small role in climate change (if we play any role at all) doesn't seem as important as us cleaning up our act and taking care of the earth like we're supposed to.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, the earth does change naturally. That has been quite clearly established, and was central to my posts. But all evidence I see points to how the natural cycles are now being messed with. No naysayer is addressing the rather obvious changes in CO2 and CH4 that just happened to occur when humans took over the scene, other than to say: but it just can't be!! Put your calculator where your mouth is, folks. Show some hard numbers, some real, peer-reviewed research that counters what's happening on the time scale of the current ice age cycles.
Six - this is not about conviction, it is about the evidence I have before me. When I see different evidence, I will draw a different conclusion. Got any evidence? Really. I'd be happy to shift my ideas about this.
DT - you post a graph that covers the scale of millions of years. Yes, there are extreme changes over such a time scale - duh! From molten early earth to snowball earth, shit happens. Doesn't change the fact that since humans joined the scene the pattern of ice age cycles has changed in a clear, measurable way.
It also doesn't change the fact that, though the earth survives such shifts, our modern society would not. You want to live on snowball earth? Or on Earth with sea levels up 5 feet, or 30 feet, or more?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal, it's tired and been done, and we've addressed it all before. Decaying plant material exudes 180 time the Co2, and probably a similar ratio of Ch4, as human industry.
My problems with this debate are multifold
1) It ignores climate, itself, the concept. Why doe the world mean temperature hug close to geothermal? One mights say it radiates, but that wouldn't explain why large portions of he planet differ radically from the geothermal mean.
Plants. Forest cover creates a massive convection cycle bringing up a tremendous volume of subsurface water that is sitting down closer to geothermal norm. The places where surface temperature differs greatest in both directions are forestless, so the temperature is free to flow at the whim of the sun, wind, and sure, things like the greenhouse effect. Don't believe me? Drive into a city. Then drive out again. Drive into a forest. Then Drive into a primeval forest. The temperature changes are dramatic each time.
2) It ignores math. Not only does human industry not produce enough carbon to create the effect, and what it creates is consumed by an engine turning over thousands of times more carbon each year than we could possibly produce.
The first thing you have to figure is how much Co2 we produce. I worked it out, and my personal use is, and it's about 3 times the amount that I use breathing. GW crowds says the world average is 10 times, the "naysayer" crowd says about .7 times. The issues are really "how many people drive" "how many miles does the average person drive" (very few drive as much as the US, Canada and Australia) and "what percent of out impact is our direct consumption?" (about 50%) So, that means for me, 6 times as much Co2 is produced by my part in industry as in my breathing.
This look at the human total biomass. Okay, what if we are producing 10 times as much as our norm per our biomass? Humans are <1% of the animal biomass, animal biomass is <1% of the land biomass and land biomass is <1% of the Earth biomass. Each of these things is producing and/or consuming Co2 all the time, and we're barely a spec on their radar. If do drive into the city, I pass through billions of trees each one weighing hundreds of tons. I realize that statistically I'm driving through one of the most densely populated parts of the planet, and just visually, I see no humans. I see a trillion times the biomass of the humans there, which is why I'm not seeing them. They're just not very significant.
Sure, humans have little human-dense deserts called cities, but these don't make up much of the surface or biomass of the Earth. Now, if you want to talk about *local* climate change, I'll agree with you.
3) It ignores anything else that might happen in the meantime. Said biomass is not a steady stable state, but is constantly in flux. With or without human intervention, it will change its intake and output of Co2 all the time. Right now, plants here are growing like never before. (In my lifetime) Why? Well, winter is shorter, the atmospheric Co2 is higher, and the water table is significantly higher. This isn't raising sea level, we're 1000 feet above sea level. So, my sister planted a tree two years ago, it's now towering 20 feet. That's new. It's not bad, but it sure is new. Could be any number of factors involved, including the evolution of trees, genetic differences. But I've been seeing a lot of that. We're probably in for a lot more of it.
4) I don't think it's a sincere scientific argument. Not yours, personally, but the overall debate. I think it's politically motivated, and so it contains elements of academic dishonesty to try to win over its goal, which ultimately probably boils down to each one trying to make the other side look bad.
To wit, here are some more issues with the story:
[Over 50 million years the temperature falls steadily, measured in glaciation]
Okay, there's the intermediate term temperature graph of the global mean. (60 million) The Ice Age cy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Agreed about bickering, but I must disagree with so many things. Just because you've decided something, doesn't mean that it "has been decided." Especially when you can't state it with references, or without using "probably".
I don't know why you stick with the millions of years time scale. And you seem to debate by making assumptions with little or no basis: you first assume you're right, then use your assumptions to build a logical argument to prove that you're right. It's just not convincing.
Let's start here:
Quote:
Why doe the world mean temperature hug close to geothermal?
First of all, huh?
So... I'm not sure, but you seem to mean that the internal heat of the earth controls the climate. Though you then say that not everywhere on earth is the same as the "geothermal." Hence more Huh?
BTW: one might say that the earth's heat radiates, and that would be because it does. Blackbody radiation in the infrared.
You bring up "Plants growing like never before" - like how the earth was covered in old growth forests before human agriculture began? You mean Asia and Europe and Africa and South America and major parts of the US have somehow become all forested again?
It turns your whole "drive into a forest" argument against you: yes, forests effect temperature and atmospheric content. So how much forest has been lost since 10,000 years ago? Don't you think that would have change things, since by your own argument trees are so huge and important?
Speaking of which...
Quote:
If do drive into the city, I pass through billions of trees each one weighing hundreds of tons.
Hundreds of tons?
www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/ch/ch01%5CChvolume01page401.pdf
Tree weights vary from 0.25 to 10 tons. I'm sure a few northern CA trees go beyond that, but those are rare and take up a helluva lot more room.
Billions of trees? This I want to test.
There might be 300 trees per acre, if they're spaced by an average of 12 feet. That only allows 6 feet of branch radius for each tree - these aren't huge. No redwoods here. There's 640 acres in a mile^2, so about 2E+5 trees/mile^2.
In order to see "billions" of trees - let's call it 2 billion, you'd need to see 10,000 square miles. If you can see 10 miles each way off your highway, that's 500 miles of solidly wooded land you drove through. OK, not so far off as I'd expected, but still it's 50% longer than the north-south length of Maine. It works if you have to drive through most of New England to get to your city.
Now, I don't know what twisty stuff you're doing to find your personal CO2 use, and from that inferring the human CO2 contribution. Let's try this instead:
World Crude Oil production 1980-2007
Data from:
http://205.254.135.24/emeu/international/oilproduction.html
6.19E+11 barrels, 1 barrel = 42 gallons so that's 2.60E+13 gallons
Fuel oil produces 22.29 lbs of CO2/gal.
Total CO2 released: 5.80E+14 lbs of CO2
That's 2.90E+11 TONS of CO2 released since 1980.
That’s only from oil – doesn’t include natural gas and coal. In fact, it you’re willing to go with wikipedia as a source,
“Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently... about 27 billion tonnes per year.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmospher
e
27 billions tons of CO2 per year. How many trees does it take to process that? I'll leave that for later...
Anyhow, I'm sure this is all a waste of time because no climate change denier seems to use math in the way I'd expect. You know, with a calculator rather than with their hands waving in the air in front of them.
But this is a fun exercise and one I've been wanting to give my students. I'll probably put it into my classes this spring.-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He actually did show his work once. After I figured out where he'd gotten the numbers from, I followed his math on a calculator, it came out the same. The main question remaining is whether the equation was set up right and if we missed any sources or sinks for the closed system.
I'm also not sure why there's any problem with looking at temperature data or CO2 data for the cenozoic era in total.
Also, he does think cutting trees has an impact, he wasn't ever arguing that they don't. His argument is more against industry, not that there's no climate change, temperature change, or change in CO2 levels.
Aw, no one wants to discuss break period versus Milankovitch predictions and northern borings versus southern borings with me. ._.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, I saw a show about something like that when I was at my grandma's house a couple of weeks ago and my dad and I tried to watch it but it was just ending when we turned it on and we had to leave to go home anyways. Sorry I don't have anything more relevent to say on the matter, but that stuff is interesting.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"What started 8000 years ago that might have affected CO2 levels ? ... And 5000 years ago that might have affected methane levels?"
I'm not seeing it, simply b/c populations levels were very low back then (estimated 7M and 14M). https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pbb0aoD3hdM-HgD-knTGXIA
If it takes the full press of a large population and modern technology to put the Amazon under pressure today, enough to see a global effect, could a relatively small scattered population with limited technology create global CO2 and methane change?
Are there calculation estimates for that?
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Milankovitch cycles are cool. I don't know what the rest of it is - arctic ice vs subarctic ice? Please explain!
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Aw, no one wants to discuss break period versus Milankovitch predictions and northern borings versus southern borings with me. ._.
(But I can't visit fff at work, and I'll be there late today, so you may not hear back for a while.)
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"What started 8000 years ago that might have affected CO2 levels ? ... And 5000 years ago that might have affected methane levels?"
I'm not seeing it, simply b/c populations levels were very low back then (estimated 7M and 14M). https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pbb0aoD3hdM-HgD-knTGXIA
If it takes the full press of a large population and modern technology to put the Amazon under pressure today, enough to see a global effect, could a relatively small scattered population with limited technology create global CO2 and methane change?
Are there calculation estimates for that?
There are. I'll dig them out when I get a chance.
BTW, despite appearances, I'm not completely convinced by this idea. But it's the first compelling science I've seen behind climate change. I'm waiting for a solid argument to counter it - "solid" meaning based on science and actual measurements, rather than hand waving over what people think should be intuitively obvious.
If I've learned one thing from teaching, it's that human intuition sucks at science.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Okay, Kiki, let's say "I won't be around..."
We already are experiencing the results of global warming and I think we will be at the point of 'OMG our systems are crashing down around us' crisis in a couple of decades.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm not seeing it, simply b/c populations levels were very low back then (estimated 7M and 14M).
It's actually a very interesting argument. Around that time, both slash and burn and also growing rice in rice paddies was starting to kick off. The slash and burn has some obvious greenhouse releases, but it was also thought that the rice paddies might release a lot of methane.
I'd have to see if I could find some manner of chart showing any possible CO2 or methane increase at the time to confirm it, but if Milankovitch cycles are at all accurate in predicting the onset of an ice age, then early human civilization derailed it before it could start.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't know what the rest of it is - arctic ice vs subarctic ice? Please explain!
Okay, so your lake sediment borings from Alaska up north are showing midge flies which show some approximate temperatures, right? From those temperatures scientists are determining that we're in a ice age break period.
But ice cores from Antarctica and the Milankovitch cycles suggest we should have started an ice age about ten thousand years ago, and one theory about that is that human agriculture kinda derailed it.
So it's an interesting question of what's going on here? And the idea I came up with, that I was attempting to run past you, is that the arrangement of landmasses around the sampling site is actually having a noticeable impact on the climate record at those sites. The midge flies are showing a warmer than ice age climate, consistent with a break period, but that might be due to the fact that there's landmass around Alaska and the Arctic Ocean and has been for quite some time. Landmasses get warmer than ocean.
Meanwhile, down south you have some ice cores that suggest an ice age cycle more consistent with the Milankovitch cycle. But on the other hand, Antarctica has very little landmass around it and it's high, icy albedo means it's going to be colder than average as well.
It's just interesting to see the differences. Trying to adjust for those differences could be a key factor in determining where we are in a climate sense. If we really were meant to be in an ice age right now, then it's kind of a whoa nelly! But if we're meant to be in a break period, it's kinda like, well, the earth has been relatively warm in general, humans are making it warmer, is there a significance and how much is significant?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I don't know why you stick with the millions of years time scale.
I added it to the data set because you excluded it. I don't know why you excluded it. Adding prospect shows radical departure from the theory, which is based on short term data and the exclusion of conflicting data. That's not good science, hell, it's not science at all. It's politics. This is what politicians do. They show you islamic radicals fighting and they do not show you islamic radical charities. It's the same with anything. Also, science does not make sweeping statement or draw end times scenarios.Quote:
And you seem to debate by making assumptions with little or no basis
WTF. Quote:
Quote:
Why doe the world mean temperature hug close to geothermal?
First of all, huh?
Have you even *met* geology?
[above graph shows geologic subsurface anomaly (hotspot) in reference to standard gradient.
Any theory involving climate should first know what the fuck it is and how it works. The median temperature of the earth is drawn to a geothermal mean, as per the gradient, by means of convection. Quote:
Though you then say that not everywhere on earth is the same as the "geothermal." Hence more Huh?
Yes, you see large derivations in the middle east (120F) and Antartica (-70F) which you do not see in more heavily forested areas, perhaps because less convection is taking place. Under antarctica, where the critters live, it's 40F, fairly similar to under Iraq or Saudi Arabia.
If we go to a heavily forested area, like the amazon, if there was no such thing as convection, we might expect to see that it was the same temperate as Iraq. The average temperature in the rainforest is 80F. Not that different from here in the summer. So, sure, the position of the sun affects the temperature, but heat also radiates from the earth, and also, temperature is exchanged by convection.
A hotspot is an anomaly, also based on convection. But Saudi Arabia is not a hotspot anomaly, it's a desert.Quote:
You bring up "Plants growing like never before"
Relative to my experience with them. It was hyperbola.Quote:
So how much forest has been lost since 10,000 years ago?
Since humans, quite a bit, of course after the ice age, forest cover increased. It changes. The Earth changes.Quote:
Don't you think that would have change things
Sure. Notice any very large changes on the chart of millions of years in temp and atmospheric co2 having nothing to do with humans?Quote:
Hundreds of tons?
Met any trees?Quote:
Tree weights vary from 0.25 to 10 tons.
Seriously, have you met any trees? I've planted trees that weigh 0.25 tons or 500 pounds as we call it. When they come down, I cannot carry them away. Trees can weigh anything, but first growth trees can weigh a lot more. Now you are nitpicking.
Billions of trees? This I want to test.Quote:
There might be 300 trees per acre,
Depends on the trees, but sure.Quote:
if they're spaced by an average of 12 feet.
Sure,Quote:
That only allows 6 feet of branch radius for each tree
There are no branches at the base.
Okay, you're really wasting time. The forest is 200 miles on a side, so I can calculate the number of trees: 7,680,000,000
That's billions. That's more trees than there are humans on the Earth.
Why are you doing this? Nitpicking every offhand comment I make. It's just a dick move. You're wasting my time. Clearly, the biomass of trees exceeds that of humans, that was the point. There are virtually no humans as a biomass, we are biomass irrelevant as a species. So is our industry.
Mal, I did the math, a few times here, and you intentionally ignored it. Most of the world's biomass is in the sea. 37.5 trillion tons of carbon, which if burned would be 137 trillion tons of co2. Circulating, there are about 6 trill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm. The only thing I want to add to that is that geothermal temperatures, while they will radiate into air, you're talking about a phase change and a much less dense medium, meaning more insulating. The air is never going to be so warm as the average 25 degree Celsius temperature coming off the ground, and within the first hundred feet or so you can affect the surface temperature of the ground through weather, biome, and climactic effects.
There is some laboratory evidence about gases being able to behave as greenhouse gases, though it depends on where they are in the atmosphere. Upper atmosphere CO2 actually has a cooling influence. Close to ground atmosphere, as in the toposphere and stratosphere are more what you're going to be looking at if you want to look at how gases absorb heat and change ambient temperature.
Also, when I was talking about boring samples and discrepancies, I'm just shooting the breeze, not making arguments one way or the other.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm I the only one that finds it funny that DT will argue against pretty hard science of climate change but then expect people to listen to him about a drinking water contamination conspiracy?
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How about we get real as to what's actually behind all this and why?Quote:
Not too long ago, belief in climate science wasn't a political issue. Honestly! As recently as the 2008 U.S. presidential election, both the Democratic and Republican candidates professed belief in the threat of global warming, and each advanced policies designed to curb U.S. carbon emissions. Senator John McCain had even co-sponsored one of the first congressional bills to create a carbon cap-and-trade system. And it wasn't just McCain; Mitt Romney, runner-up for the GOP nomination last time around, supported a regional cap-and-trade program while he was governor of Massachusetts. There was still a wide gap between Democrats and Republicans on the severity of the climate-change threat and on how ambitious carbon-cutting policy should be, but at least there was a general agreement that global warming was a real thing.
Not anymore. With the exception of Jon Huntsman — who barely registers in polls — you can't find a Republican presidential candidate who unequivocally believes in climate science, let alone one who wants to do anything about it. Instead of McCain — who has walked back his own climate-policy realism since the 2008 elections — we have Texas Governor Rick Perry, who told voters in New Hampshire over the weekend that "I don't believe manmade global warming is settled in science enough." And many Republicans agree with him: the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering yes to the question of whether the effects of global warming were already being felt fell to 30% or less in 2010, down from 50% in 2007-08. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats remained around 70% or more.
That's deeply troubling. It's one thing when people disagree on the effectiveness of different approaches to fix a problem; it's worse when they refuse even to believe that a problem exists — despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that says it does. One of America's major political parties has, in effect, adopted denial as policy. How did we get here?
As the sociologists Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Aaron McCright of Michigan State University suggest, climate denialism exists in part because there has been a long-term, well-financed effort on the part of conservative groups and corporations to distort global-warming science. That's the conclusion of a chapter the two researchers recently wrote for The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. "Contrarian scientists, fossil-fuel corporations, conservative think tanks and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades," Dunlap and McCright write. "The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine."
For those who've followed the seesaw of the climate debate in the U.S., there's not much new in Dunlap and McCright's chapter, but they do lay out just how long and how intensively some conservatives have been fighting mainstream climate science. Fossil-fuel companies like Exxon and Peabody Energy — which obviously have a business interest in slowing any attempt to reduce carbon emissions — have combined with traditionally conservative corporate groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative foundations like the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity, to raise doubts about the basic validity of what it. That message gets amplified by conservative think tanks — like the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute — and then picked up by conservative media outlets on the Internet and cable T.
All of the naysayers seem to be following the playbook written by the tobacco industry in its long, ongoing war against medical findings about the dangers of smoking. For both Big Oil and Big Smoke, that playbook is lethally simple: don't straight-up refute the science, just raise ske
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
...
What is with all the buckshot I keep getting hit with...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki, I see that the argument I'm about to make has become adopted by Republican candidates, which makes me feel filthy, but I also see there's a bit of effort being put out to deny it and discredit it by various members of the news agency, which is dangerous, because they also support the status quo and big business (including oil) etc.
Fortunately for me, the avalanche of right versus left nonsense hasn't yet dropped the information so far down on google that I can't find it.
I'm just going to post this here, and ask people take a notice of the date.
http://www.env-econ.net/2009/02/cap-v-tax-bp-v-exxonmobil.html
Exxon support for one measure and BP support for the other does not fill me with supreme confidence that either measure is on the up and up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The air is never going to be so warm as the average 25 degree Celsius temperature coming off the ground, and within the first hundred feet or so you can affect the surface temperature of the ground through weather, biome, and climactic effects.
Byte,
It's like GW temp graphs, you can get much finer tuned charts of geothermal in the top few hundred feet. The standard temp at 300 feet IIRC is about 57F. At least around here. There's a clear relation going on here.
Outside, you're competing with space, solar or the void. The water drawn up from the roots of trees is likely to be at some geothermal temp, not because the roots are 300 feet deep, but because they're drawing on a subsurface body of water that is going to be close to uniform temp because it's a body of water, and so it's dragging towards geothermal as well, which is why you always have groundwater instead of ground ice unless you're in the arctic tundra. That and pressure. But it's pressure that's creating the geothermal ultimately anyway.
As a result, the trees around here are transpiring around that temperature. The water in the amazon is warmer than here, but not radically.
As for the atmospheric behavior of co2, it's complex, as you say, certainly not as simple as portrayed in the GW argument. This argument is simple panic created for simple people. It's political, and never going to hedge its bets, temper its language or admit to multiple factors having various impacts or systems having dynamic feedback.
Nick
I have on this forum, on several occasions, *shredded* the rather bogus "science" of mainstream GW theory. There are a number of people who agree. It's a political football, and it's relation to science is loose. I don't disagree with it politically, as an environmentalist, it's actually useful to me. I disagree with it scientifically because it is wrong, as in incorrect.
Niki,
Nah, it was before 2008. Al Gore made it into a partisan issue, but he had help from John Kerry who said in in the 2004 campaign. The motive there was simple: Bush got a lot of funding from oil companies. But behind that is more of the same end of the world panic-mongering.
What I really don't get is that at the same time you had people on the right going off about the rapture and on the left going off about catastrophic runaway GW that would turn the Earth into Venus... and neither one of them could see that what they were peddling was the exact same thing: completely bogus end of the world panic.
Byte,
I pegged early on that Obama and BP were close bedfellows. You're right of course neither is on the up and up. They both want a scheme that allows them to tax the opposition while giving themselves a loophole to get off with not only no tax but open license to pollute and some sort of monetary bonus.
It's a global derivatives scheme. They both are.
And don't feel dirty for agreeing with a republican, it happens. Consider it this way: I've been trading mortgage derivatives. Think how I feel ;)
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
dragging towards geothermal as well, which is why you always have groundwater instead of ground ice unless you're in the arctic tundra.
Yeah, tundra and permafrost is what I was thinking of. Anyway, while this is a big factor, I'm not sure this is the only factor, at least around the surface. Deeper than 100 feet, yes, you're going to start seeing that gradient more. As you go down each kilometer rock and soil (being primarily Silicon) adds about 30 degrees Celsius temperature, excepting the hot spots and the cold spots you mentioned. Ambient temperature has an influence towards the surface, as does groundwater temperature, around 1 km that influence is negligible.
Probably the biggest air temperature factor is the angle of sunlight, followed by air and ocean currents. Otherwise I don't think we'd ever see permafrost.
Quote:
You're right of course neither is on the up and up. They both want a scheme that allows them to tax the opposition while giving themselves a loophole to get off with not only no tax but open license to pollute and some sort of monetary bonus.
Thought so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Um - isn't it obvious? Because I'm interested in what happens over the next couple thousand years. That has a little more effect over us humans than what will happen in the next coupled million.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I don't know why you stick with the millions of years time scale.
I added it to the data set because you excluded it. I don't know why you excluded it.
Choose your time scale a little more wisely my friend. See this is what I mean about your assumptions - you choose to focus on the wrong time scale, then you kvetch about the rest of us worrying over the sun going supernova. You chose the wrong time scale, not me.
Quote:Well, technically, my PhD is in geophysics, not geology. So I'd have to say that I haven't blown him or anything, but we're passing acquaintances.
Have you even *met* geology?
You?
Yes, there are geothermal areas. There is a heat budget of thermal energy conducting up through the crust, the cause of which is pressure and radioactivity. And this has what to do with the climate? I know: you found a pretty picture and it got you all excited. Right? And that means you know "the fuck" about the climate? You have lots of scientific studies showing that variations in radioactivity in the earth is tied to climate variations? And it fits observations as well as Milankovitch cycles? Do show. Do.
And where exactly did you study this? The same place you learned that heat comes out of the earth through convection? To quote you: "The median temperature of the earth is drawn to a geothermal mean, as per the gradient, by means of convection."
I'll just be sitting here pointing and laughing while you go google "convection" and look into those time scale issues. I won't waste time with the rest of your post.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I have on this forum, on several occasions, *shredded* the rather bogus "science" of mainstream GW theory. There are a number of people who agree. It's a political football, and it's relation to science is loose. I don't disagree with it politically, as an environmentalist, it's actually useful to me. I disagree with it scientifically because it is wrong, as in incorrect.
If you could shred climate change (what it is called now) you would not be talking to us here but you would preparing you peer reviewed article.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"There are. I'll dig them out when I get a chance."
That would be cool (so to speak). I'll wait.
As an aside, this is what I was thinking:
The major reason for land clearing in the Amazon is for cattle grazing. Grazing takes a lot of land per person (it's a very inefficient use of land for food production). And b/c it's the Amazon, the soil is worn out within a couple of years, so they have to go and do it all over again. They carry this out with chainsaws and bulldozers - a high technology method dependent on fossil fuels. There is so much that has to be in place for a few million humans to have that kind of impact.
What humans DO seem to be able to do in a short time with relatively small numbers and primitive technology is wipe out animals. In N America the extinction of a lot of animals comes after human settlement - oh - and a large meteorite that seems to have struck somewhere in - Illinois ? I think. But you see the same pattern in other places - Europe, Australia, NZ etc. However, I can't think of a way that would affect the climate. And it's waaaayy off in terms of timeframe.
So, I'm at a dead-end with my question. How could humans have caused climate change in those time periods?
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kiki
You're right about the grazing, but most the Amazon that was destroyed was cleared with regular fire set by regular arson. Overwhelmingly, I forget the percent, but my recollection was aroun 70-80%.
What humans have done to the forest cover of the Earth is pretty pronounces, but until recently it has happened at a much slower pace. The first documented decline is Egyptian descriptions of the desolation of the Sahara. We know that the Sahara began to decline from its native rain forest state about 3 million years ago, but didn't go into full collapse until the end of the last ice age, just at the beginning of Egyptian civilization. There are obvious ecological factors at work here having to do with dynamics of the water systems, rivers, lakes, rain, etc., but there's also a pretty clear human impact. stone axes and fire by themselves don't make a catastrophe until you have a lot of time, but they did. There's also pretty good documented evidence of the decline of the middle east and china, as well as india, but we have an excellent record of the deforestation of europe and north america, and now the ecological collapse of eastern brazil.
So, yeah, it can and does happen, though the sort of practices that are being done now in Brazil, Africa and S.E. Asia. It doesn't take the level of technology the we see in the Athabascan disaster to make an ecologist desert, or even hell on Earth, given enough constant dedication to destruction.
The sobering thing is that even in Brazil, it's just a handful of people driving the force of habitat destruction, which, yes, does push the extinction of massive numbers of animals and insects, but does also extinct some plant species. And in this case, the people driving it overwhelmingly aren't brazilian, the majority, about 70% is coming from Texas-owned businesses.
Of course, we're not the planets only bad guy by any means, a quick look at investors in the athabascan project shows that every hyper-industrial nation has its arm in the destruction of the environment.
I agree with a lot of what people say, including that the oil companies need to be stopped, and we should look at alternative sources of energy. My personal choice is biofarming, because it requires no major technology, so there's no energy cost in production, it can be stored forever, and it's solar derived energy. Also, almost everything we already have can run on it. I like Algae because of the high yield per acre. For smaller consumptions (a car being about 20,000 watts, a cell phone being about 2 watts) I think we should go solar, and for those who can, community-based wind looks good. For hardcore industrial projects I like nuclear, which puts me at odds with some of my fellow environmentalists, but I would argue "maximum output for minimum impact" but only when you actually need that max out, and that the sane solution would be to place nuclear plants and industrial robotic factories in some place people couldn't live anyway, like the middle of the desert.
Life, biodiversity, is the one resource that we can't replace on this planet, or anywhere. Ergo, it should not be traded for anything. It's like I say about time not being money, because you can spend your time earning money, but you cannot take your money and buy more time.
Mal,Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Um - isn't it obvious? Because I'm interested in what happens over the next couple thousand years. That has a little more effect over us humans than what will happen in the next coupled million.
I feel as though you already lost this one, and you lost it on this point. You don't know you've lost it yet, but you will in time. It takes a while for these to stick. At least, that's what I've found when I've lost arguments. I've lost many here on the forum. Probably if you track back you'll find that I lost this very argument we're having, which has brought me to my present position.
Understanding how ideas evolve is of course more important than the specifics of gradual atm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Actually, I have much more important things to do...
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nick
I'm not sure that I get this, but it came across as incredibly dickish, given the context. Hell, it looks dickish in any event, but I know you knew that I meant the cancer research I was interrupting to discuss climate with Mal, and was getting back to because of her impending imminent death. I don't know that you wanted to give the impression of being the world's biggest dick, but this is the second time you've done it.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nick
I'm not sure that I get this, but it came across as incredibly dickish, given the context. Hell, it looks dickish in any event, but I know you knew that I meant the cancer research I was interrupting to discuss climate with Mal, and was getting back to because of her impending imminent death. I don't know that you wanted to give the impression of being the world's biggest dick, but this is the second time you've done it.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
You say that you don't want to debate, yet you post paragraph after paragraph doing just that. You say that you have ripped up the theory of Global Warming, which is now more aptly called Climate Change, but do not have time write an article yet you are here trying to rip it up.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You most definitely are not.
I'm I the only one that finds it funny that DT will argue against pretty hard science of climate change but then expect people to listen to him about a drinking water contamination conspiracy?
What buckshot are you being hit with, Byte? I'm sure it's just that, or at least I hope it is. As far as Quote:
I wonder about that "coalition"...I'm guessing the "businesses" aren't oil and gas... Although, given it was 2009, as you noted, I could see how they'd be part of a coalition if for no other reason than to moderate the coalition's actions. Once people got serious about it, if there were any oil or gas companies in the coalition, betcha they're not NOW!
"BP -- along with ConocoPhillips and Shell Oil Co. -- are members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of businesses and environmental groups that back an economy-wide cap to slow, stop and reverse greenhouse gas emissions." So yes, we'd expect them to argue for a cap.Quote:
That you equate the two, DT, makes me laugh. Loudly. One has some--even if you refuse to acknowledge "lots of" science behind it, the other is pure chicanery and ignorance.
What I really don't get is that at the same time you had people on the right going off about the rapture and on the left going off about catastrophic runaway GW that would turn the Earth into Venus... and neither one of them could see that what they were peddling was the exact same thing: completely bogus end of the world panic.
Nick,Quote:
I love it.
So I'd have to say that I haven't blown him or anything, but we're passing acquaintances.Quote:
Also excellent.
If you could shred climate change (what it is called now) you would not be talking to us here but you would preparing you peer reviewed article.
I, too, usually don't bother with DT's 
unless he directs something specifically at me. Even then it's usually only something laughable and not worth addressing. I long ago gave up on DT and accepted that he's talking through his hat at least 50% of the time, making it sound like what he theorizes is accepted fact and refusing to provide backup.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good grief. I'm stunned. Someone bring back Kaneman.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
OK, if my post starts a thread, I get to define a rule: it shall not be taken over by back and forths with he who posts the same long ago refuted shit with absolutely no supporting facts or links. You all know what I mean.
Fair enough. I'll refrain from my usual afternoon pasttime of "kick the teabagger".
As for the OP, I agree - you nailed it. I might just steal it and post it elsewhere.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Good grief. I'm stunned. Someone bring back Kaneman.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
I don't see how that'll help your posts make more sense.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What on earth...
DT posted his MATH. Talking through his hat? TEABAGGER? This is mischaracterizing quite a bit of this discussion.
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT mean they can't make valid points.
Nick, just like all of us, DT can get caught up in long arguments involving long series of posts and not necessarily want to be. The fact that he did and does is not a valid logical counterpoint, pointing it out as an attack on his credibility is an ad hominem.
I note that insulting language, like calling someone a dirty word, is not an ad hominem, as the insults would have to comprise a portion of the subject and the argument and points being made. As such, DT asking you all not to dismiss him - though I admit in an insulting way - is not an ad hominem.
Making arguments from authority and attacking whether someone has expertise is not a valid counterpoint.
All of you who talk about the amount of evidence that contradicts DT, either post it or, if you're certain of your positions, the evidence, and so on, don't bother arguing with him. But this mockery is unnecessary.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Is that what he's doing? I doubt it, I think it's clearly as snark...pretty obviously aimed at me. To compare me to Kane is deeply offensive to me, given Kane posts filth and obscenities of the most personal nature, and I was his main target for a long time. I've NEVER, EVER posted anything like what Kane does, so to compare me to him is about as low as one can get.
DT asking you all not to dismiss him - though I admit in an insulting way - is not an ad hominem.
DT and I've been around and around on this one; a lot of what he posts I find so far out in left field as to be, in my estimation, crazy. He offers things which he indicates clearly are "accepted facts", which they are not. I tried to reason with him, many times, and in the end pretty much gave up and pass over most of his posts unless they're directed at me specifically. It took me a very long time to give up, but in the end I did.
He has said more than once that he comes here to "learn". But I've yet to see him indicate anyone has taught him anything (I may have missed something, admittedly); for the most part he "lectures" and his style is such that it seems like he is indicating the rest of us are idiots. I find that off-putting, so I avoid addressing him the majority of the time.
You can lecture if you wish, but the fact is that we're all fully aware that if you come to RWED, you do so at your own peril. Lord knows I and others have been the butt of Raptor and Wulf and others' nastiness, so while I can't speak for anyone else, taking ME to task, given the material I posted, is pretty unnecessary. If you're addressing your remarks to someone else, that's a different matter.
The reason I don't bother with the climate change issue much anymore is that we've been over it so many times before and proven our points, only to come back and find the same claims made again and again. It's a personal matter, in my estimation; neither those who believe the climate is changing and that man has had a hand in it and those who believe it's a scam will never change their minds, so why should I waste my time yet AGAIN posting what I posted before several times? There are better issues to pay attention to.
I just took the dogs to sulky Crissy Field and then let them play on the beach. Coming back, I took a second to read one of the placards they have there. It was documenting the ocean's rise over time and what it's expected to rise in future "because of global warming", which made me smile. I'm thoroughly convinced that, just like smoking, those with vested interest in keeping things the way they are have worked long and hard to make people doubt climate change, and have been quite successful. It saddens me, but I'm not getting into it yet again, knowing nothing will change.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Is that what he's doing?
Take a look in the context, where his insulting language starts to appear. It's just after he's started to be dismissed by various members, and he does ask to not be dismissed... Though yes, using the term "dick" or similar in the exact same paragraph where he's asking is really not likely to make someone listen to that request. But then, I think we all fall into that trap now and then.
It's when he continued to be dismissed - en mass even - that he mentioned kaneman.
While I see that he escalated the confrontation, another indication he wasn't really using his words all that well, at the same time there was some initial, though not as offensive disrespect he was reacting to.
It can be difficult to see what causes a fight while actively involved in it. Both left and right wing on this board sometimes go after each other with little provocation, sometimes starting right from the headline of a thread. Perhaps DT's initial posts seemed to fall into that category of attacking the basis of the thread/headline/initial poster, though initially I think he WAS just trying to debate some specific points. Certainly he was less offensive at the beginning than say some of the other right wing poster's you mentioned and their knee-jerk response, and considering he actually DOES think that there is a human contribution to climate change, and that this was misunderstood from the beginning, I don't think he deserved the response here that he got.
I don't believe either side is the aggressor more often then the other, I just think I'm being useful by point out to people what sets other people off. Perhaps I'm not.
Huskies! :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I just reread the thread from top to bottom (skipping over DT's incredibly long posts). I don't see anyone saying anything to him like him calling Mal4 a "dick" (repeatedly), so I don't see how others are the ones you are blaming. It's all a moot point, as now I see DT's cracks at Mal4 prior to his crack about Kane, so perhaps that wasn't aimed directly at me.
However, we've been here before insofar as DT saying he hasn't got time to go into this or that, then overwhelming the board with incredibly long posts trying to make the very points he said he didn't have time for. Throwing "imminent death" in is truly rude; none of us use our private lives (that I'm aware of) to say we can't discuss something, we just don't discuss it, and it comes across to me at least like "I'm dealing with something terribly important, you're arguing something stupid; I'm not going to deal with you", as if we're being insensitive to his (sister, I belive?)'s cancer. It's very DT, so I'm guessing (perhaps subconsciously) that's what he intended.
Lastly, given Mal4 has a Ph.D. in geophysics and DT seems to have opinions about almost everything and writes as if he is the only one with the definitive answers yet I don't know what his actual education is in, I think I'll go with Mal4.
For some reason this issue of climate change has appeared to be a bugaboo with DT; every time he marches in and states "definitively" that man-made (I would say "man-enhanced) climate change has been debunked. That's his OPINION, and he's welcome to it, but to all but insist that we accept his word and that it's been debunked (which it has not, at all) is high-handed, and calling people dicks for disagreeing with him makes him the rude one, in my opinion. Enough alreadym for me at least.
P.S. While re-reading I came across where I'd said we'd not live long enough, then corrected it to I wouldn't. I wasn't saying we wouldn't live long enough to see effects, obviously we already do, I meant to say I wouldn't live long enough to see the matter SETTLED once and for all. In my opinion, by the time enough people accept that we need to change things before we completely destroy our world, it will be too late to reverse those effects. Just wanted to clarify that.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see I'm not useful. All right then.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"DT and I've been around and around on this one ..."
... as I have been over bacterial evolution (specifically antibiotic resistance), among other topics. He claims for example that carbapenem-resistant bacteria are a result of recent genetic manipulation at Bagram Air Force Base, DESPITE the fact that that >particular< antibiotic resistance factor gene was discovered years before in India, that that particular patient at Bagram was from India where that resistance factor was found, and despite that fact that bacteria developing antibiotic resistance in general has been a scientific observation literally since penicillin was discovered, and has been well documented and well studied for many antibiotics over 40 years. It seems that in some areas DT claims expertise, but lacks true knowledge.
I think DT is, in technical terms, a 'crank'. One of those people who show up in town hall meetings to complain about the color red; or who, as I have from time to time had the misfortune to deal with, call up local scientists to complain about - oh - vapor trails for example - as a method of mind control.
That whole trope about the 'crazy genius' who nobody would listen to who was 'right' after all - most of the time you can leave 'genius' and 'right' out of the equation. In many instances, I think DT kinda' fits that description.
Not that I think DT is a bad person. I suspect he has had some severe problem that has skewed his perspective. He is someone I wish well. It's just that I find his postings to be less than informative. He makes too many claims, cites too little information, and addresses no objections with actual data.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, I've about had it here for today, too, Byte. I bet we've both got more pleasant things to do with our day; let's go do 'em!
Kiki, while I agree with a lot of what you've said, I don't see DT as a crank. For me, we each think differently, and some of those differences clash. I'm big on "it's my opinion" and such caveats and don't like being told something is accepted fact (which pushes my "I don't like anyone else saying what I think" trigger); obviously DT isn't. He apparently feels he is better educated on most subjects than the rest of us; I don't. Yes, I feel a lot of the conclusions he comes to are pretty weird, but I don't think he's a crank so much as has an unfortunate way of putting things and seems to have some difficulty accepting that others might know as much as he, but on the opposite side of the discussion.
Hey, we all have our quirks; gawd knows I've got plenty of 'em!
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think that post is fair, considering that you're on the opposite side of the debate as DT, and that both sides of any debate might think that the opposing conclusions are strange and don't make sense.
I like that you made that statement. And yes, let's both go do something empowering, like hang out with our animals or get some fresh air.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki, Byte
"... I'm big on "it's my opinion ..."
"... both sides of any debate might think that the opposing conclusions are strange and don't make sense."
Except reality doesn't care about opinions and conclusions. It moves forward of its own accord. Our thoughts - chaff before a storm. Those who truly understand reality best, are the best prepared for the real world that is already upon us.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I enjoy how DT asks me if I've ever "met geology", and when it turns out that I might have he calls *me* elitist. That's just silly, especially given how far out his supposed close relationship with said topic is.
Cause here's the thing Byte: science is not opinion. DT can talk convection all he wants, doesn't make his intuitive beliefs at all sensible.
Let's review. (ETA: pardon my edits for clarification. I shouldn't post science without having a reread first So I'm fixing some wording a bit.)
Thermal energy (heat) is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a medium. Kinetic energy is energy of motion. So "heat" is all about whether the molecules in the material are "jiggling" slow or fast. There are three main ways that thermal energy can be transferred:
1. Radiation: vibrating charged particles are the source of EM waves. The EM wave propagates until it encounters other particles that resonate with the wave's particular frequency, then the wave and its energy are absorbed. The is how the sun's energy reaches Earth.
2. Conduction: the kinetic energy of the particles is transferred through physical collisions. ie: hot, high energy particles of hot air outside a wall collide with molecules in the wall, transferring kinetic energy. The particles in the wall collide with each other until molecules on the inside surface of the wall collide with air in the room. Then the people inside turn up the AC and wish they had better insulation in their walls.
3. Convection: heat is transferred through the actual movement of material. For example: some idiot opens the window on a cold windy day and low energy molecules from outside move in. Or a pocket of hot water in the bottom of a pan moves up, carrying its internal energy with it.
DT would have us believe that the free movement of water inside the Earth is responsible for the Earth's climate, more so than heat transfer from the sun's radiation. There are many, oh so many obvious WRONGS to point out here that I can't believe I actually have to do it.
First: you know that big swing in temperature that hits a peak and trough at around 2 pm and 2 am? Yeah, that's from radiation. Please, show me a place where geothermal effects are more powerful than that.
Second: you know that 12 month cycle that hits a peak and trough in roughly July and January? Ditto.
Third: convection requires free motion of the hot/cold material. If fluids were able to move freely in the Earth's crust, how come we have all those trapped fluids? Aquifers, oil reservoirs, gas reservoirs. Why would oil companies need to frak to get the fluids out if they were free to move and convect? Yeah, that's right. Fluids have limited movement inside solid rock.
Fourth: How much of the crust even has any kind of fluid in it? The Moho (look it up DT, unless your best friend geology is sitting next to you whispering in your ear) is about 40 km down. There sure as hell isn't any liquid water below that, and yet the source of the Earth's internal heat is far far below the crust. So how is that water convecting the heat up so effectivly?
Oh right. You must have gotten your science from watching The Core...
ETA a fifth: DT could make a point by showing evidence of variations in the Earth's internal heat that fit the Earth's past climate cycles. Note that he does no such thing.
Meanwhile, Earth's orbital cycles = the Milankovitch cylces - fit the ice age pattern quite well.
Don't believe me. Believe the evidence.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kiki - I finally remembered to bring the pertinent book home. It'll take me a little to boil things down and give you actual numbers.
In essence: Ruddiman estimates the amount of CO2 and CH4 that would be needed to explain the anomalies in the figures I posted above. Then he does some estimates. It's actually an interesting read, tracking human development and how various crops spread.
CO2: land clearing for agriculture started about 8000 years ago. It meant lots of trees down - CO2 released in the burning, and less CO2 processed with the trees gone. He uses the area of the cleared land to calculate the amount of CO2 released, and finds that it can explain the anomaly.
CH4: methane comes from rotting plants, right? Rice paddies started about 5000 years ago, about when CH4 deviated from the natural cycle. He does some rough calcs to show that the size of rice paddies in Asia could explain the amount of CH4 in the anomaly.
I will try to give you numbers, but it'll take some thought to make it clear and concise. He spends several chapters presenting his evidence, with much detail and many references related to the human/agriculture development.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for getting back to me. I'm a little pressed for time - just finished a major project which pretty much consumed my life for the last 3 months, and in about a week I have to go back east. Sigh. I like having a job, I even like my job, I just wish I could take a vacation some time this year. I have to say, it all used to be easier when I was younger. Anyway, when I get back it may just be easier for me to get the book(s). Could you do me a BIG favor? Could you PM me the title(s) you found most informative? I'd appreciate it, and in my email they will be in an easy to find, secure place.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The technical details of this go way over my head, but once again I will state quite frankly that I feel the whole bloody lot of you are overcomplicating a simple situation.
Don't pollute your living space.
Really, is that so damn hard a concept for anyone to master ?
Does it really require all this hullabaloo ?
Maybe it's just me, but I figure that's yanno...
Obvious ?
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
science is not opinion
Science is, however, competing ideas and data sets, and I still think people are misunderstanding that DT DOES in fact think that GW exists and people contribute to it.
He just doesn't think people are the primary factor, though one of our actions - slash and burn deforestation - might be.
Quote:
Don't pollute your living space.
I believe I speak for everyone when I say everyone agrees.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Science is, however, competing ideas and data sets, and I still think people are misunderstanding that DT DOES in fact think that GW exists and people contribute to it.
He just doesn't think people are the primary factor, though one of our actions - slash and burn deforestation - might be.
It is not an issue of what he thinks, but that fact that how he is trying to back it up does not pan out. Nor do his attacks against the competing ideas.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
but that fact that how he is trying to back it up does not pan out.
Partially. His point about geothermal heat being the primary contribution to air temperature was incorrect, and both Mal4Prez and I corrected him. However, the numbers he's presented about the amount of CO2 in the air, the biomass, and sequestered in carbonate are verifiable (though not concrete). If you mean HOW he's presented them, then yes, he hasn't endeared himself to any of you.
The question here, given the measurements of the amount of CO2 and the sources and sinks, is if DT proposes a valid model for the behaviour of that CO2, the effect on climate, and humanity's role in that, or if anything is overlooked/missing that might then lean more towards humanity having a bigger impact.
While I do believe there is climate change, and humans are driving it, I don't think there is an accepted model yet for how it is acting. That's why I'm willing to listen to alternative models, so long as I think that the logic or basis behind those models raises any valid points. Challenges only build and refine the models we do have. A better understanding of what is happening will give us a better end decision.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
science is not opinion
Science is, however, competing ideas and data sets, and I still think people are misunderstanding that DT DOES in fact think that GW exists and people contribute to it.
He just doesn't think people are the primary factor, though one of our actions - slash and burn deforestation - might be.Quote:
Don't pollute your living space.
I believe I speak for everyone when I say everyone agrees.
Byte, here's the thing, here's where the disagreement comes from:
If you have a particular chemical in the air in a room that's survivable at 1ppm, but not at 100ppm, and you introduce 99ppm of it into the air, it's a bit ridiculous to try to claim that you had no part in the deaths of the people in that room.
In other words, it doesn't matter HOW the GW is being helped along by human actions; it matters THAT it's being helped along by human actions. Even if we only contribute 1% to the GW, if that 1% makes the difference between reaching the tipping point or not, then we're the last straw.
Arguing that deforestation is worse than industrial output is like arguing that burning to death is better than choking to death. Neither is optimal, because you're still dead at the end of either event. And it's giving us a false choice: You can either worry about pollution, or you can worry about deforestation. What, I can't worry about more than one thing at a time? I can't work for two solutions?
[NOTE: I'm not arguing with you, Byte - I'm trying to show where I think people have an issue with DT's argument.]
BTW, if people aren't a primary factor, but their actions are, then people ARE a primary factor, at least until you get them to stop said actions!
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
but that fact that how he is trying to back it up does not pan out.
Partially. His point about geothermal heat being the primary contribution to air temperature was incorrect, and both Mal4Prez and I corrected him. However, the numbers he's presented about the amount of CO2 in the air, the biomass, and sequestered in carbonate are verifiable (though not concrete). If you mean HOW he's presented them, then yes, he hasn't endeared himself to any of you.
The question here, given the measurements of the amount of CO2 and the sources and sinks, is if DT proposes a valid model for the behaviour of that CO2, the effect on climate, and humanity's role in that, or if anything is overlooked/missing that might then lean more towards humanity having a bigger impact.
While I do believe there is climate change, and humans are driving it, I don't think there is an accepted model yet for how it is acting. That's why I'm willing to listen to alternative models, so long as I think that the logic or basis behind those models raises any valid points. Challenges only build and refine the models we do have. A better understanding of what is happening will give us a better end decision.
DT thinking is pretty sound, the thing is he misses some important facts along the way. Examples...
Quote:One milliliter in how much water? Yes if you ingest one milliliter of Trichloroethylene in a day, or a few you will be bad off. Of course at those levels you will be able to smell and taste it. Not to mention that fact that the franking does not pour millions of gallons of anything into any water supply.
One milliliter of TCE in your water can kill you. Doesn't it bother you that the president's energy plan currently calls for pouring a million gallons of it into your water supply?
Quote:
The co2 consumption of photosynthesis is 2,000 times the total human industrial production. The reason co2 is rising is that we cut the consumption through environmental destruction.
The second part of this makes sense, the first part does not take into account that that along with Human industrial production you also have natural CO2 production.
Quote:
Any theory involving climate should first know what the fuck it is and how it works. The median temperature of the earth is drawn to a geothermal mean, as per the gradient, by means of convection.
One, convection only happens in liquid or gas mediums. Second, the geothermal mean has little to do with surface temperatures. He does have a point that forested area tend to be cooler and part of that is that there is more water to absorb energy in evaporation. He seems to miss that the oceans would also have this affect and at much larger levels.
The biggest thing he does is to assume that Climate Scientists have not thought about the things he has brought up and considered them. Hell in one place he even questions the greenhouse effect.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good points on those. I only really have one that I want to talk about.
Quote:
One milliliter of TCE in your water can kill you. Doesn't it bother you that the president's energy plan currently calls for pouring a million gallons of it into your water supply?
One milliliter in how much water? Yes if you ingest one milliliter of Trichloroethylene in a day, or a few you will be bad off. Of course at those levels you will be able to smell and taste it. Not to mention that fact that the franking does not pour millions of gallons of anything into any water supply.
I think this one is actually a pretty major concern.
The nytimes predicts that one well can in fact produce about a million gallons of wastewater.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html
"With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself."
Then you have to be concerned about how you're using that wastewater, such as some counties calling it "brine" and using it to de-ice roads. That puts the wastewater right back in the groundwater, the surface aquifers even, not just stuff deep down that doesn't effect anything (and when you fracture those layers, I'm not sure that's true anymore). And then not all the waste water you put down in a well comes back up.
It's true that the water in places is being set on fire because of the methane being released from the pockets, but that suggests a fairly significant contamination, that surely can't be good to drink... Or breathe, in the case of infiltration.
Quote:
There were more than 493,000 active natural-gas wells in the United States in 2009, almost double the number in 1990. Around 90 percent have used hydrofracking to get more gas flowing, according to the drilling industry.
Nationwide that's predicted the industry will double that number of wells in the next two decades.
1 million total wells. Millionish gallons of waste water.
Times together, that's a trillion or more gallons of wastewater being produced, that we have a poor idea how it's being disposed of. One percent of the waste water is some nasty toxic chemicals. Think evap ponds, think loopholes with sewage plants, this stuff appears to be largely being put right back into the ecosystem.
I don't think this is a crank, at all. Calling it a war might be a bit much because I'm not sure the industry is meaning to destroy the drinking water, but I think it's very serious, and I think that could be an end result.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you, Byte. You're awesome! Good info there, and something that definitely bears thought.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't think this is a crank, at all. Calling it a war might be a bit much because I'm not sure the industry is meaning to destroy the drinking water, but I think it's very serious, and I think that could be an end result.
It is not crank at all. What is crank is claiming it is a conspiracy. Or ignoring that volatile organic chemicals, such as TCE are not that hard to remove from water. Or claiming that waste water treatment is just dilution.
DT has some good thoughts, he just jumps to far in his conclusions and has gaps in the knowledge that forms the base of his arguments.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Or ignoring that volatile organic chemicals, such as TCE are not that hard to remove from water.
Actually, that really kind of depends on the horizontal and vertical extent of the spill, and the initial contamination. TCE is a DNAPL, it sinks, but also soluble and able to be mobilized with disturbance by most common forms of clean up.
For a surface spill clean up that IS easy. But say you have degreasing operations that have occurred on an air force base for about a decade, then they switched to a different chemical and started being more careful, but serious TCE impacts exist in downgradient neighborhoods across near an entire city almost forty years later. Or, say you have a dry cleaner from the 1900s that kept several wastewater separator vaults around (about five), and buried them, and concentrations in those vault were about 50% product. You have a continuous leak from the vault over near a century, and contamination all the way down from ten feet to about 100 feet. Even a combined injection of surfactant and microbes has not been sufficient to clean up the mess, and obviously excavation to the furthermost depths is not really feasible.
These are situations I have encountered in the field.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
Or ignoring that volatile organic chemicals, such as TCE are not that hard to remove from water.
Actually, that really kind of depends on the horizontal and vertical extent of the spill, and the initial contamination. TCE is a DNAPL, it sinks, but also soluble and able to be mobilized with disturbance by most common forms of clean up.
For a surface spill clean up that IS easy. But say you have degreasing operations that have occurred on an air force base for about a decade, then they switched to a different chemical and started being more careful, but serious TCE impacts exist in downgradient neighborhoods across near an entire city almost forty years later. Or, say you have a dry cleaner from the 1900s that kept several wastewater separator vaults around (about five), and buried them, and concentrations in those vault were about 50% product. You have a continuous leak from the vault over near a century, and contamination all the way down about 100 feet. Even a combined injection of surfactant and microbes has not been sufficient to clean up the mess.
These are situations I have encountered in the field.
I meant removal from water supplies at the water treatment plants themselves. Sorry for not making that clear.
I inspect a handful of water plants that have forced draft, or pack tower aeration systems to strip volatiles now.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh. Then yes, that would be easy. There might be other chemicals involved that aren't so easy to remove though, nytimes does mention something about that.
Depending on the source of the cancer rates that DT is seeing, it seems we might be talking sufficient contamination in situ, from waste water never removed from groundwater. Not only does the TCE plume we're seeing from the air force base have a similar cancer rate, and we know that's TCE, but we know that methane isn't carcinogenic.
Even if it isn't TCE, we know something in the groundwater in DT's town is, and the entire town has been fighting some fracking spills that happened a few years back.
There's this guy I work with, he's been over in Vernal, the town with the big fracking operation in Utah, only over there they're trying to get oil shale instead. He's seen giant tanks by the drill pads, one I remember he said he noticed was labeled xylene.
There's some in the industry who say they've come up with some new lubricant for the fracking wells... Petroleum jelly. I believe you can see the issue I have with this, if they're already using petroleum products to frack with, and also the implications for some of the yield they've been reporting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What on earth...
DT posted his MATH. Talking through his hat? TEABAGGER? This is mischaracterizing quite a bit of this discussion.
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT mean they can't make valid points.
Nick, just like all of us, DT can get caught up in long arguments involving long series of posts and not necessarily want to be. The fact that he did and does is not a valid logical counterpoint, pointing it out as an attack on his credibility is an ad hominem.
I note that insulting language, like calling someone a dirty word, is not an ad hominem, as the insults would have to comprise a portion of the subject and the argument and points being made. As such, DT asking you all not to dismiss him - though I admit in an insulting way - is not an ad hominem.
Making arguments from authority and attacking whether someone has expertise is not a valid counterpoint.
All of you who talk about the amount of evidence that contradicts DT, either post it or, if you're certain of your positions, the evidence, and so on, don't bother arguing with him. But this mockery is unnecessary.
I think the problem arises when DT, who kind of claims to be the expert on everything as far as I can see, comes up with a posters real expertise. It's kind of frustrating if it is 'your area' to see it distorted by a sloppy use of fact. Now I'm not weighing in on the climate debate, only that I read it and don't completely understand it. If most independant scientists believe that it is a credible argument, I'm going to have to believe them, not having the intellectual tools to debate with them on this one. It seems clear to me that dissent on this issue has come from those who have the most to lose economically and who are incredibly powerful conglomerate of corporations, media and government.
I've had arguments with DT before that have frustrated the hell out of me because its clear that on a lot of things he isn't that well informed and yet he argues as an expert. Doing a few quick googles does not constitute expertise, yet he rarely concedes that he might not know everything. I found it frustrating when its been about stuff that I have done a lot of reading on, and he posts a couple of photos as his winning argument and its a completely looney argument that he is trying to prove.
I think the problem lies in how he communicates. I do get he is throwing around a few far fetched theories, stuff that he has thought might be possible or could have some truth. I have no problem with that, but they often fly in the face of evidence which he won't concede. Science is wrong, except for his own science.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Oh. Then yes, that would be easy. There might be other chemicals involved that aren't so easy to remove though, nytimes does mention something about that.
Depending on the source of the cancer rates that DT is seeing, it seems we might be talking sufficient contamination in situ, from waste water never removed from groundwater. Not only does the TCE plume we're seeing from the air force base have a similar cancer rate, and we know that's TCE, but we know that methane isn't carcinogenic.
Even if it isn't TCE, we know something in the groundwater in DT's town is, and the entire town has been fighting some fracking spills that happened a few years back.
There's this guy I work with, he's been over in Vernal, the town with the big fracking operation in Utah, only over there they're trying to get oil shale instead. He's seen giant tanks by the drill pads, one I remember he said he noticed was labeled xylene.
There's some in the industry who say they've come up with some new lubricant for the fracking wells... Petroleum jelly. I believe you can see the issue I have with this, if they're already using petroleum products to frack with, and also the implications for some of the yield they've been reporting.
Oh, don't get me wrong I do see a lot of problems with fracking. I fully expect to see more and more solid evidence come back that it is causing problems. I hope when they do the EPA is in a position to put a stop to it, or tighten the regulations to mitigate the problems. You know as well as I do that it going to take a huge amount of data before people will listen and move.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nick, I agree. :)
Magons, I think believing that you can't compete with those scientists on an intellectual level is selling yourself short. Science isn't really about who has the most credentials, but rather who has the best conclusions for the data and best predictions.
Maybe you might have the best ideas.
Of course, maybe my believing that is a big reason why most of my family kinda wants to slap me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
see below
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the problem is WHAT he communicates.
He makes totally bogus statements and posts irrelevant and highly selective bits and pieces. Here are just a few of the MANY bogus things he posted that a quick trip through google would have uncovered, if he had bothered to make it.
"But the fractional change in co2, which is not caused by industrial emissions, is not having a deleterious effect on the planet."
By simple math, the global CO2 levels have gone up at least 25% in 55 years. As to the cause, global oil consumption alone (not counting natural gas or coal) for ALL uses (including our beloved cars - there's no need to only count 'industrial' emissions) has quadrupled over the same timeframe.
"Correlation doesn't prove causality."
But you are nowhere without an event followed by another event. And the FACT is that CO2 absorbs infrared - heat - and keeps it from being re-emitted into space. It literally traps heat. Let me repeat - that is a FACT. The increased CO2 is causing increased heat to be trapped.
"There's not really a strong historical correlation, in spite of those charts."
Because, frankly, other things happen, like plate shifts, the effects of vegetation, or major asteroid impacts or volcanism both of which put earth under a cloud of particulates.
The Ordovician cooling:
"By integrating rock magnetism evidence and the glacial deposit data, paleontologists have proposed a cause for this glaciation. When Gondwana passed over the north pole in the Ordovician, global climatic cooling occurred to such a degree that there was global large-scale continental resulting in widespread glaciation."
The carboniferous cooling:
"... this reflection of biospheric activity back upon itself, the activity of global photosynthesis depleting its own primary resource, atmospheric and oceanic CO2, converting that CO2 into the vast, carboniferous accumulations of deceased organic matter that became the fossil fuels."
The Jurassic cooling:
"For the first time, two long-term anomalies in δ18O are identified during the Toarcian and the Late Jurassic, in conjunction with intensive volcanism in large igneous provinces. These results support a strong influence of repeated volcanic pulses on the modulation of pCO2, temperatures, and polar ice cap volumes over protracted period ..."
Whether you agree with these cites, clearly, other things that drive global temperature can and have happened.
"Why doe the world mean temperature hug close to geothermal?"
This is a nonsensical question. There IS no 'geothermal mean'. It varies depending at what depth and where you are. Try looking it up - you will not find anything under google which even mentions that there is such a thing, let alone provides a definition, or - the holy grail (and just as non-existent) - cites a temperature.
"Not only does human industry not produce enough carbon to create the effect ..."
See 25% increase and quadruple the petroleum use in 55 years, above.
"Okay, what if we are producing 10 times as much as our norm per our biomass?"
Why 10X? Why not look at actual figures? Like this one, where baseline rates set at zero go up to over 9000 mmtons in a mere 250 years:
"GW crowds says the world average is 10 times ..."
Really? Cites PLEASE.
"There is probably no longer enough carbon floating about in our ecosystem to see a big kick back to the thousands, thanks to the sequestering of sea shells ..."
Well, according to these estimates, you're wrong. By simple ratio, if 1000gt for atmospheric CO2 is ~400ppm, then releasing the 8000gt of fossil fuel into the atmosphere results in an additional 3200ppm CO2, for a total of 3600ppm CO2. 
"Temperature of the Northern Hemisphere over the last 2000 years ..."
Other estimates - not so much
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Nick, I agree. :)
Magons, I think believing that you can't compete with those scientists on an intellectual level is selling yourself short. Science isn't really about who has the most credentials, but rather who has the best conclusions for the data and best predictions.
Maybe you might have the best ideas.
Of course, maybe my believing that is a big reason why most of my family kinda wants to slap me.
Oh you can have the best ideas, but you have to be able to back them up. Most people can't be the expert on everything, in fact most of us have little more than some ideas. There is a whole host of knowledge that I'll probably never have more than a glimmer of understanding of, and I can never expect to have the same knowledge and understanding as someone who has devoted their life to learning in that field.
Some things come easier than others. For example, I have a good understanding of history, English language, psychological theories, communication and conflict theories. I know a bit about art and neurology from reading and past studies. I'm pretty clueless when it comes to a lot of stuff about science, just never developed the building blocks.
I'd never argue neuroscience with a neuroscientist. I just couldn't. I could ask some questions, but I'd have to concede it is their expertise and not mine. I might not even have the language to be able to speak about it the same way that they, having studied and practised it for however many years would have.
To not recognise expertise is really downright disrespectful. Doesn't mean you can't question things, or you may have a gift for certain kinds of thinking even though you have no formal qualifications, but you need to recognise the limits to your own knowledge.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Strange, I don't see it as disrespectful at all. Rather, I see it as necessary. A person can recognize the limits of their knowledge, but that doesn't mean accepting expertise above all other considerations. Experts can be wrong. I've forgotten more of my education probably than I ever even learned. Whenever I'm asking questions or arguing, I'm thinking back through the very limits of my memory capacity, and I'm a person who has trouble remembering a conversation I had not five minutes ago.
I might use scenarios I've encountered as example arguments, but I have never on this board brought up my job or my credentials like it would win me any kind of points.
This one time, I was arguing on the main board against someone's self-proclaimed Firefly characterization, storytelling, and plot expertise. He was the writer of a popular fanfic series, and he kept USING that as a justification for why he was right.
Or, not that we would, but what if Mal4Prez and I were to start arguing about whose expertise was more applicable, or who had more years of education (her), or who does the harder science and math (also probably her).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahhh, Byte, and here I thought you were going to do something life-affirming and get out of this silly thread. Not silly in that it doesn't have pertinent points and facts, but silly in that it's a non-starter; I don't think anyone can PROVE either side completely or will convince anyone on the other side.
As for me, I find a very strong argument inQuote:
I don't see the people who say there IS a problem with climate change and that we are contributing to it to the point of danger as having the money, influence or power to compete in this arena, especially given mankind's instinctive wanting not to change things drastically and the fact that if we took it seriously, we'd have to change a LOT that we find convenient and comfortable now. That and the fact that there is a large body of the scientific community which believes it. I don't take scientists at their word, but when a LOT of them say the same thing, I start wondering if they might be right.
It seems clear to me that dissent on this issue has come from those who have the most to lose economically and who are incredibly powerful conglomerate of corporations, media and government.
I also don't see them as having nearly the motivation to fake it as I do the monied interests. If we go all the way back to Mal4's original statement and weigh the motivation between those with a HUGE interest in keeping things how they are (and continuing to drill more and more) and those who believe it's a danger and that things desperately need to change, the suspicion falls on those for whom profit drives all, who (like far too many) think in short-term gain and will do/buy/say whatever is necessary to keep those profits high.
It's just like fracking and so many other things; where there's profit, money is always spent to "yell the loudest". I suppose I'm somewhat like DT in that I think "man-ENHANCED" changes are affecting us; I don't understand enough to "know" climate change is man-MADE. I just believe they're far more enhanced by our activities than he does, and have less invested in proving my point.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Ahhh, Byte, and here I thought you were going to do something life-affirming and get out of this silly thread.
I did for the rest of that day...
I agree with your post, though I think it's also important to recognize that any monied interest worth their solvency has a number of contingency plans in play just in case something that would otherwise be less than advantageous for them comes up. And that people might be using science for less than nice agendas as well, such as globalization and world government and petty rivalries.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good; I'm glad you got away from the toxicity of this place for a time. We took the dogs to the Divide; my back is so bad I can't walk very far (or do much of anything else), but at least they got out. Today I HAVE to get them out sulkying somehow, they need the exercise and the house needs the peace!
As for monied interests, yes, I recognize that. I also know that, via much effort, we are turning the tobacco interests to diversifying, as well as fighting back, and if climate change were accepted by enough people, I think those profitting from our screwing up the planet would hopefully do the same and jump on the alternative-energy bandwagon. If it became accepted, I'd like to believe they'd see the writing on the wall and do so as well.
I don't believe in some of the things you do, and I think petty rivalry could only have a VERY small effect, if there weren't money behind it (not grants, etc., but money to "find" the "facts" negating it).
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by DT:
What I really don't get is that at the same time you had people on the right going off about the rapture and on the left going off about catastrophic runaway GW that would turn the Earth into Venus... and neither one of them could see that what they were peddling was the exact same thing: completely bogus end of the world panic.
If you don't get it, would you stop doing it? After all, you're the guy who posits that if Obama is elected in 2012, there won't be a 2016 election, and then posts scary pictures to "prove" your point. Just sayin'.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Good; I'm glad you got away from the toxicity of this place for a time. We took the dogs to the Divide; my back is so bad I can't walk very far (or do much of anything else), but at least they got out. Today I HAVE to get them out sulkying somehow, they need the exercise and the house needs the peace!
Sorry to hear about your back; I know how that goes - mine's fine most of the time (well, there hasn't been a day without pain since 1982, but I'm used to it for the most part), but once in a while it slips, and I'm ruined until I can get it worked out. Relax, feel better, take it easy. See a chiropractor if you can.
I'll be taking the dog out today, IN THE RAIN! It's actually been raining here, pretty much nonstop since yesterday morning. First significan rain we've had in over a year. Haven't seen any rainfall totals, but everything helps. Shit, if nothing else it'll knock some of the dust and ashes off things!
If you see a middle-aged man dancing, badly, in the rain in south Austin, don't be alarmed. :)NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Holy shit! 
RAIN IN TEXAS! Finally! 
Every little bit helps, so I'm sure you won't mind if I celebrate "for" "with" you! We're supposed to get some tomorrow--the first one last week lasted several days, and since then, "Winter" has arrived; colder at night, colder in the morning, and we only get to the 70s. 
Back is scaring me. Time to go back to the neurologist, 'cuz it's not going away; I'm all but living in my back brace, and that's a first. Depression, which hasn't left yet either, isn't helping; yesterday I went to bed at 2pm, got up at 7 to feed the animals, back to bed at 10 and slept until after 6 this morning. And now I'm so sleepy I could go back and do it all over again...at 8:30 am! Sux. But I GOTTA get them out somehow today, so I'll stay awake at least long enough to do that.
Go dance in the rain, man, I'm so happy for you!!! 
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Strange, I don't see it as disrespectful at all. Rather, I see it as necessary. A person can recognize the limits of their knowledge, but that doesn't mean accepting expertise above all other considerations. Experts can be wrong. I've forgotten more of my education probably than I ever even learned. Whenever I'm asking questions or arguing, I'm thinking back through the very limits of my memory capacity, and I'm a person who has trouble remembering a conversation I had not five minutes ago.
I might use scenarios I've encountered as example arguments, but I have never on this board brought up my job or my credentials like it would win me any kind of points.
This one time, I was arguing on the main board against someone's self-proclaimed Firefly characterization, storytelling, and plot expertise. He was the writer of a popular fanfic series, and he kept USING that as a justification for why he was right.
Or, not that we would, but what if Mal4Prez and I were to start arguing about whose expertise was more applicable, or who had more years of education (her), or who does the harder science and math (also probably her).
I guess I was referring to this in a more broad sort of way. I'm not saying take someone's creditentials on this board, I'm talking about knowledge in general. I see the internet as a double edged sword when it comes to knowledge. You can certainly find out stuff on the Internet, although a good dose of it is probably rubbish. People might think they know more, but I'm not sure that they are more knowledgable. It is different googling a whole load of stuff to reading and studying it year in year out.
You can certainly question experts, they can indeed be wrong, but normally unless it is an area in which you consider yourself highly skilled or knowledgable, you'd probably get a second expert opinion. If I thought my mechanic was leading me astray, I'd see another mechanic. We live in a society where skills and knowledge are highly specialised. It would be nigh on impossible for someone to be highly skilled/knowledgable in IT, medicine, history, mathematics, psychology, construction, engineering, mechanics, plumbing..... Even within those categories there are further specialisations. You wouldn't expect someone to be in charge on engineering a bridge or a high rise if they's looked up a bit of stuff on the net. Nor would you have brain surgery performed by someone who had a read abit about it once or twice.
Expertise is needed for a whole range of things, and yet somehow it is considered elitist to defer to expertise. That is why the climate debate is so frakked. If climate experts are saying there is manmade climate change happening, then why should be believe the journalists and largely non scientifically trained commentators who are screaming dissent? You'd have to prove that there was a world wide conspiracy amongst the scientific community to fake data and for what purpose?
What you don't need to be a scientist to work out is that we are shitting up our backyards. Have you ever been somewhere in the world that is truly pristine and beuatiful and then gone back 15 years later and found it polluted, exploited, rubbished? I have. It happens here all the time. Heartbreaking, unless of course someone campaigns to preserve beauty and wilderness, habitat destruction, saving animals from extinction, overfishing, over exploitation of resources, it will continue to happen. And all the way you have to fight the interests of business, corporations, capitalism, call it what you will, who turns a blind eye to destruction and exploitation because there is a shit load of money still waiting to be made.
And in summary, I give you one of my favourite places in the world that I have just visited (and is protected)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tasmania, that would be amazing. Of course, to an American, Australia itself seems remote and exotic.
Quote:
Expertise is needed for a whole range of things, and yet somehow it is considered elitist to defer to expertise.
Sure, I'll agree expertise is important, but there's different ways people wear it, and some ways they wear it are more objectionable than others. Rather like how you feel DT who is not an expert wears what he thinks, some experts seem to think it's enough just to BE an expert. No elaboration, no justification, just "I'm an expert."
I have no problem talking to someone who wants to treat me like a human being, and provides backup information/data and their logic for why they've reached their conclusions. I'm even likely to listen. I don't listen if being an expert is all someone has to contribute. What a person has to say is as important as how they got that information.
And if some experts I talk to seem to be incompetent, like the heart doctors I saw who couldn't figure out I had precordial catch syndrome (especially when a previous doctor suggested it as a possibility), then I can't be expected to respect them.
Quote:
What you don't need to be a scientist to work out is that we are shitting up our backyards.
Agree.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem's right, this shouldn't be so difficult.
Fracking is crap/luh suh.
DT a chara, I find it tiresome when you always reference the 5th grade education thing, because weren't you homeschooled the rest of the way, got a GED or something similar and then you went to college. So the fifth grade statement isn't accurate and it distracts people, well it distracts me, from your points.
I tend to think that DreamTrove makes sense on this topic and on fracking, though I don't think that its a huge conspiracy to destroy the world. But I do think its a conspiracy to make money no matter what happens. Anyways I understand where he's coming from on this and it makes sense to me as an observer. I have no scientific background except that I like nature and science shows on PBS and the Discovery channel. I like learning about animals and volcanoes and sometimes outer space. I don't know if that's where the average American is with science or if they're all more knowledgable on it than I. I do know though that the only I passed physics in high school was by riding the coattails of my groupmates, I'm pretty good at coattail riding in scholastic situations.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I know more than you because I have an official looking signed paper in some field."
Maybe PhD programs ain't what they used to be, but people with official looking signed papers tend to know a lot more than the casual bystander to a topic (as long as those papers come from a legitimate institution).
And FWIW it's extremely difficult to have a 'scientific' discussion on this board. First of all, IMO 95% of any topic is learning the language - whether it is specialized terms for specialized information, or mathematical formulas, or both. If you don't speak the same language, it's hard to discuss the topic. The alternative is for the person with the knowledge to literally try and teach all the necessary background - but that isn't going to happen here.
Another problem is that using academic papers as references is something I'm not sure is allowed. I may personally purchase the e-version of a paper, but am I allowed to post it? So what gets referenced are extremely shallow google references, which I think no one should find legitimately convincing. In this instance, the only thing they're good for is to indicate you're not just completely fabricating a line of bullshit.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think DT gets annoyed with people who seem to be saying that emissions are the ENTIRE problem, while he sees deforestation as the major problem. But what neither of the groups who are accepting of climate change seem to be willing to concede, is that it's ALL PART OF THE PROBLEM.
I swear, it's going to drive me to violence one day, this constant attitude of "There's only ONE solution: MINE!" There ISN'T just one solution. There's lots and lots and lots of solutions, each of them tiny.
People seem to look at the overall problem and either (a) despair and give up, figuring it's too much for them, or (b) focus in on that one thing that they can change in their own lives, and proselytize that this will be the whole solution, and the ONLY workable solution. I've got news for ya, people: Big problems don't have single solutions.
Instead of looking at the problem as a single source and a single solution, let's start looking at the Big Picture a bit more. A problem like climate change isn't a straight-arrow problem, where you can draw an arrow on a straight line from problem to solution. It's more like a grid. Picture a grid, 10 squares by 10:
Each of those squares holds a tiny piece of the puzzle, one piece of the solution to the problem. Each of them, in essence, holds one percent of the answer.
Of course, really big problems exist in more than two dimensions, and are more complex than a simple grid. Picture a matrix, 10 x 10 x 10 - the grid above, but 10 squares deep as well. Now each cell represents 0.1% of the answer.
You can't do a thousand things to solve climate change all by yourself. But we can each do several things every day, and be a tiny part of a larger solution.
Do we have to ban cars outright? No. Do we have to ban logging overnight? Of course not. We have to start cutting back; we have to start weaning ourselves off these things. And as we do more of them, we find there is actually less to do. That grid that started off at 10x10 becomes, in the second level, 9x9, then 8x8, and so on, until we work our way down to the final piece. In three dimensions, it would look like a four-sided arrowhead pointing to the answer, a "targeted matrix" if you will.
Of course, this matrix is purely imaginary, a thought exercise to help get your head around the idea of what solution systems would look like, and it would really exist in four dimensions, not three, since time is always a factor.
But we can do this. Things that seemed odd to me all those years ago when I started doing them are now completely normal, and forces of habit. That makes it easier to keep doing more and more things that will reduce my carbon footprint, because I can keep doing what I've been doing, out of habit, and I can concentrate my energy on adding new things to my old habits. And so can you.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I usually go and look for the abstract, which is free, and if well written has sometimes been in the past good enough to work for whatever point I'm arguing.
Quote:
but people with official looking signed papers tend to know a lot more than the casual bystander to a topic
Not necessarily. This is where you get into some of the problems in the academic system. Sometimes you get someone who sounds like they know what they're doing, but then they really don't. Often times peer review exposes them as fraudulent, but there still seems to be idiots that think those papers give their voice more weight than any brains they might have.
That's why it's important, even when listening to some experts, to have your incompetence and nonsense detectors out until you know for certain the person in question actually does know what they're talking about.
I was pretty happy when Mal4Prez said angle of sunlight is probably the big contributor to air temperature, since we agree. But yeah, you could get a second opinion and so on if you felt it was warranted.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME