Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?  
User currently offlineL0VE2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 1571 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4520 times:

If so, why did the Ice Ages ended?! There was no humans burning fossil fuels back then.

One fact we can all agree on is the Earth's climate is continually changing. Whether human activities are to blame for climate change that's where the debate begins, So what do you think?

101 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6594 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4520 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):

One fact we can all agree on is the Earth's climate is continually changing.

True - but does it have to do with the "rate of change"?

Is the temp raising faster because of human activity?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4515 times:

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
So what do you think?

The pace of the current change cannot be explained with natural phenomena.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4448 times:

Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4446 times:

I think it comes down to what real scientists say because I highly doubt 90 some percent of them are in a conspiracy...

Then we got to see how much of an impact we make and if green measures do or don't help out, and the consequences are for not going green

Lastly, and this is a big turn off for many (and I can't blame people) is the politicalization of it all. On one side you bias energy companies funding anti-global warming stuff, then you have the other extreme which uses global warming to JUST increase taxes.

Politics seems to screw everything else and make steps 1 & 2 more meddled. I'm gonna go with the majority of climotologists on this one but at the same time, I'm gonna be very wary of exploitful governments...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6651 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4425 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.

The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4396 times:

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
If so, why did the Ice Ages ended?! There was no humans burning fossil fuels back then.

Hmm, so if it was natural back then it must be natural now? Like if a house burns down after a lightning strike then no other house can be burned down by a pyromaniac.

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
One fact we can all agree on is the Earth's climate is continually changing. Whether human activities are to blame for climate change that's where the debate begins, So what do you think?

I don't think that is where it begins. Looking at history it is clear that humans have had no problem changing the environment. Thus the question shouldn't be if global warming is man-made but where it is going and if we should help it get there or work on keeping it closer to what we have today.

I am convinced the negative effects of higher average temperature will have very negative effects on humans and then it is clear we should work on stopping it. The only difference between man-made and natural is that it is easier to negate man-made effects.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4387 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 5):
The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.

And did you read this in Tree-Hugger Monthly by any chance?


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1374 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4386 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 5):
The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.

Cheaper for whom? Depends on which country is responsible for the warming.

I sometimes get very annoyed at the "anti-science" people who deny global warming is happening despite the enormous weight of evidence to the contrary. I have little sympathy for those who question whether global warming is man made or not- to me it doesn't really matter; the question is what the effect will be and what we can do about it. Questioning its cause seems too much like abdication of responsibility.

But when you start getting into the question of what to do about it there comes a problem. Most proposed solutions involve forcing large numbers of people to do things they don't want to in a uniform manner, which is simply unrealistic, especially when there's no visible driver for change. The vast majority of the world couldn't care less about a few atolls in the ocean disappearing- they will continue to delude themselves until the water is lapping at their front gate.

Challenging the science is futile and nonsensical. Challenging policy and direction should be encouraged, and I don't believe we're doing that enough yet.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently onlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3761 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4380 times:

Global Warming thread alert!

Don the gas masks, man the turrets, it's here again!...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4377 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 9):

Global Warming thread alert!

Don the gas masks, man the turrets, it's here again!...

I'm hoping we can learn from it, because honestly, there is a lot I do not know because it gets drowned out by politics. How much is indeed human? How much good can we do (or can't do?) Etc.

Not sure if that was the intention of the thread but I'd like to see it go there (for once.) And I don't want it to be one sided, I still like to see anti-GW info... unfortunately, a lot of that info isn't peer reviewed like the pro-GW stuff is



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7174 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4367 times:

It's happening. That's not much of a question what the question is, how much are we humans actually adding to climate change and do we really have an affect on changing something as unpredictable, huge and mysterious which earths climate is. Obviously not taking about weather or even climate over a few years I'm talking centuries. We have no idea what's going on with that and probably never will.

People talk about how strong hurricanes are yet some of the strongest happened in the 1920s and 1930s. People talk about polar ice but we have no idea how much sea ice there was 500 years ago.

Us adding in green houses gases has to do something I imagine but the actual impact is the question. A big impact? A little? Might take some time to figure out and then it might be too late but cities flooding by 2070 like showed in an inconvenient truth is not happening.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4357 times:

After surviving Al Gore and other alarmist's barrages, my personal belief is that there probably is an impact on overall global climate via humanoids, however, the earth does not maintain the same distance from the sun at all times, and of course the earth tilts on its axis, which leads to getting warmer than "usual" and colder than "usual". Been that way for a zillion years and it will be that way for another zillion years (unless we blow ourselves up first).

When I opine that there probably is an impact as a result of advanced human endeavor, I do believe the impact is far down on the scale of importance versus the impact of, say, a couple of monumental volcanic eruptions. I guess we can help the environment a bit, but I am thinking natural phenomina will probably always win. Must stop here. all best...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4339 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 12):
the earth does not maintain the same distance from the sun at all times, and of course the earth tilts on its axis, which leads to getting warmer than "usual" and colder than "usual".

It cannot be the sun for at least 2 reasons:

1) While it is getting warmer near ground, it is getting cooler higher up in the atmosphere. It is the same effect as putting a lid on a pot. Would it be the sun, temperatures would climb everywhere in the atmosphere.

2) Night temperatures near ground are climbing slightly faster than day temperatures.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 12):
I do believe the impact is far down on the scale of importance versus the impact of, say, a couple of monumental volcanic eruptions.

But it is actually the other way around. Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

Your two arguments have long been outdated, sorry, and if people are interested in Al Gore, then they are Americans. Only Americans mention his name when discussing global warming.

[Edited 2013-04-25 18:38:17]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4321 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Well if a few large cities are deemed inhabitable in the next century then we will know the answer to that question.

Quoting flymia (Reply 11):
People talk about polar ice but we have no idea how much sea ice there was 500 years ago.

Regarding Sea Ice that doesn't contribute to rising sea levels as an iceberg has already displaced that water. Also climatologists have a good idea of how much ice there was up to hundreds of thousands of years ago as well as the gas concentrations back then. They are alarmed because they cannot find historical evidence of this much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Where sea ice is relevant also is that ice reflects heat and water absorbs it.

One of the things humans are doing besides emitting so much greenhouse gas is taking away a lot of the things that suck up the carbon such as trees (deforestation needs to be slowed) and farming practices can be changed that could do much more to reverse the trend than stopping all industry.

This TED talk gives some insight to a potential solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
But it is actually the other way around. Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

Volcanoes would actually help to reverse the warming as SO2 reflects sunlight back into space and has a temporary cooling effect. It happened in 1992 after Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, and bigger eruptions such as Krakatoa also had this effect.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinetrav110 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4271 times:

There is virtually no dispute among climatologists that anthropogenic climate change is happening. This is not political, it's scientific. I certainly don't consider myself very well-versed on the subject but I'll believe a scientist before I believe someone who is uninformed and who uses anecdotal evidence and personal experience to support their opinion.

[Edited 2013-04-26 00:28:14]

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4263 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.

If you think that changes in climate don't have significant economic and geopolitical costs, then you're very much mistaken.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25247 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4245 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.

So - what - things like the Clean Air Act in London were a waste of time?

That all those pollutants pouring into the air from coal burning fires weren't really a problem, that buildings weren't really caked with soot because of them and that thousands of people didn't really die from the effects of the great smog of 1952?

Gosh.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4219 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
If you think that changes in climate don't have significant economic and geopolitical costs, then you're very much mistaken.

First of all define "significant".

Secondly where have i ever stated there would not be costs?

The point i made is that the costs of climate change are unlikely to exceed the costs of preventing it.

Quoting mariner (Reply 17):
So - what - things like the Clean Air Act in London were a waste of time?

No because the Clean Air Act looks to be economically viable. Having a deadly smog in your capital city is probably worse for business than changing household fuel sources and relocating power plants out of cities.

However giving up fossil fuels is probably worse for business than a 3mm annual rise in sea levels.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25247 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4207 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
However giving up fossil fuels is probably worse for business than a 3mm annual rise in sea levels.

Not for those countries which will disappear under the sea.

There are already advanced plans for relocating people from some of the Pacific Islands to higher ground in other countries. Those resettlements won't be cheap.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAF1624 From France, joined Jul 2006, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4194 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
However giving up fossil fuels is probably worse for business than a 3mm annual rise in sea levels.

I recommend you watch the film called "The Island President" which covers in quite nice detail what would happen to the Maldives if this happened.



Cheers
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4193 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
Quoting cptkrell (Reply 12):
the earth does not maintain the same distance from the sun at all times, and of course the earth tilts on its axis, which leads to getting warmer than "usual" and colder than "usual".

It cannot be the sun for at least 2 reasons:

1) While it is getting warmer near ground, it is getting cooler higher up in the atmosphere. It is the same effect as putting a lid on a pot. Would it be the sun, temperatures would climb everywhere in the atmosphere.

2) Night temperatures near ground are climbing slightly faster than day temperatures.

Agreed it is not the Sun. It's slightly variable, but not a Cepheid-type variable star. If it was, we wouldn't be here. If you take as true that the Sun's output is constant, and also accept as true that we have hugely depleted the ozone layer in the stratosphere, then:

- insulating ozone blanket no longer effectively absorbing solar energy in the stratosphere;
- solar energy therefore penetrating close to ground level;
- ergo average temperatures near the ground increasing (this is independent of CO2-induced temperature rising);
- night temps increasing more quickly due to large swathes of land 'baking out' during the day, re-radiating heat back to the lower atmosphere at night.

There are of course many other factors involved: deforestation/reforestation, agricultural practices, solution of CO2 into the upper layers of the oceans, and so forth.

One thing seems clear: there is likely about 2 degC 'worth' of CO2 in the atmosphere working it's way up into the stratosphere now, and this is likely unstoppable. So over the next 50 or so years, we are going to see a much different Earth than we have now. Not quite like Venus, but taking a couple of steps down that road. And the effects on the human population and condition are going to be significant.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4189 times:

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 20):
I recommend you watch the film called "The Island President" which covers in quite nice detail what would happen to the Maldives if this happened.
Quoting mariner (Reply 19):
Not for those countries which will disappear under the sea.

There are already advanced plans for relocating people from some of the Pacific Islands to higher ground in other countries. Those resettlements won't be cheap.

mariner

Sorry but do you actually think that losing a few islands is going to be worse for the global economy than neutralising the release of carbons?

Really?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4179 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 22):
Sorry but do you actually think that losing a few islands is going to be worse for the global economy than neutralising the release of carbons?

Do you think that by giving up a few islands we can forget about CO2 for all future? Sounds to me that you take a view that the problem can be pushed till after you're dead.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4174 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 23):
Do you think that by giving up a few islands we can forget about CO2 for all future? Sounds to me that you take a view that the problem can be pushed till after you're dead.

Not at all. Unlike people who espouse spending our way out of our current economic problems i am against passing on our problems to future generations.

The amount of oil on the planet is finite. At some point price incentives will divert behaviour to carbon neutral fuel sources. It may even happen before if we discover new technologies like fusion.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4216 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
The point i made is that the costs of climate change are unlikely to exceed the costs of preventing it.

I see that you're focussing on monetary costs. That begs the question: do you think that the only relevant aspect of climate change is its financial effect?



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 25):
I see that you're focussing on monetary costs. That begs the question: do you think that the only relevant aspect of climate change is its financial effect?

What other effects do you believe exist?


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4226 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 26):
What other effects do you believe exist?

You must be joking.

off the top of my head and in no particular order: starvation, political upheaval, war, destruction of homelands and habitats, further loss of biodiversity, less resilience against (and hence greater impact of) natural disasters such as flooding



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4216 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
First of all define "significant".

The costs of Hurricane Sandy have been estimated in the $40-50 billion range, and those sorts of storms have been predicted to become more common as a result of climate change. That'll be significant.

Desertification will reduce prospective arable land, raising food prices around the glob. That'll be significant.

Increased water demands because of desertification will result in regional conflicts. That'll be significant.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4203 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 27):
You must be joking.

off the top of my head and in no particular order: starvation, political upheaval, war, destruction of homelands and habitats, further loss of biodiversity, less resilience against (and hence greater impact of) natural disasters such as flooding

But these things implicate economic problems. Starvation means a lack of ability to pay for food. Man made and natural disasters implicate negative economic costs.

We stopped using fossil fuels. You believe there would be no starvation? War? Mass poverty?

[Edited 2013-04-26 07:30:46]

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4173 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 24):
The amount of oil on the planet is finite. At some point price incentives will divert behaviour to carbon neutral fuel sources. It may even happen before if we discover new technologies like fusion.

Great, you agree there is a problem. SO why not start dealing with it?


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4165 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 30):
Great, you agree there is a problem.

Where did i say there was a problem?

It's not necessary to put words in my mouth.


User currently offlinecaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4164 times:

Climate Change (not global warming) is a fact. The earth´s climate patterns are responding to anthropogenic activities. The earth´s natural variation is being exacerbated by our activities. The planet is a system and all systems tend to equilibrium. It is fool hardy to think that our activities on the scale that we carry them out would have no effect on the climate. When regional and local climates responded to increased activity during the industrial revolution. So as the system (earth) tends to equilibrium, the changes might be more drastic.

We do not know what this change will include, and a warming of the earth might only be one result, if it is a result at all. But our activity is affecting the earths climate, one way or the other.

Problem is, the topic has been taken and corrupted by politics and greed. We all know how that is going to end.

[Edited 2013-04-26 08:14:30]


There is something special about planes....
User currently offlinenorthstardc4m From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3023 posts, RR: 36
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4152 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
The costs of Hurricane Sandy have been estimated in the $40-50 billion range, and those sorts of storms have been predicted to become more common as a result of climate change. That'll be significant.

This isn't factual. Hurricanes have occurred long before man was burning oil, and there has been no increase in Hurricane, Typhoon and Monsoon activity or severity in the last 50 years, in fact over the last 100 years the severity rating is on average down.

Quoting mariner (Reply 19):
There are already advanced plans for relocating people from some of the Pacific Islands to higher ground in other countries. Those resettlements won't be cheap.

Still far cheaper than giving up all fossil fuels, which may not prevent the loss of those islands at this point anyways...
These islands aren't heavily populated either. Last time i checked if we relocated all populations from islands with the average terrain height of under 30m/ASL it would be less than 300,000 people total.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 24):
The amount of oil on the planet is finite. At some point price incentives will divert behaviour to carbon neutral fuel sources. It may even happen before if we discover new technologies like fusion.

People have been saying that one since the 70s, and there are STILL reserves for the current rate of consumption IN PRODUCTION to last over 100 years. Add in known but untapped reserves and it jumps to 150 years+.

If we stop using oil and coal for electrical generation that number goes up further still, and that is a possible and economic goal by 2050 if we don't go all anti-nuke (still using cleaner fossils like Natural Gas until 2100 as well).

My opinion:

If we dig through the hogwash from both sides...
The world isn't going to end tomorrow because of this. As humans we adapt, and we ARE adapting to changes all the time. We can slow our reliance on carbon conversion and move to a more ecologically balanced economy but we do NOT need to do it overnight at huge cost.

The world changes, we change, we survive, we evolve... it's that simple.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4144 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 29):
Starvation means a lack of ability to pay for food.

...or to produce it in the first place: "When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money." It's difficult enough as it is, we shouldn't be working towards the flooding of fertile coastal areas.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 29):
Man made and natural disasters implicate negative economic costs.

Are you really completely indifferent towards the deaths of other people?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 29):
We stopped using fossil fuels. You believe there would be no starvation? War? Mass poverty?

If we stopped tomorrow, it would be a disaster, but nobody is even remotely hinting at such insanity. What we need to and can do is reduce the dependency on fossil fuels through all sorts of efforts. Oil is far too versatile a raw material anyway for it to be wasted "because you can".

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 31):
Where did i say there was a problem?

So you're saying that there isn't one? In that case, you're confusing your own disinterest in with irrelevance of the topic.

[Edited 2013-04-26 08:40:11]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4131 times:

I based my post (Rep 12) from memory, often the wrong thing to do, but will submit the following in reference to Siberian engineer Mulkin Milankovich's theory which, I believe, HAS been accepted in many professional circles after decades of speculation and following serious scientific study.

The prominent 100,000-year temperature cycle due to changes in the earth's ORBIT eccentricity had dominated climate change during the recent million years. During a long earlier phase of the Pleistone epoch, the rise and decay of ice sheets had followed a 41,000 year cycle related to shifts in the inclination of the earth's AXIS. That's my memory and my reason reason for Post 12, and I just accessed such on an interesting site (web address below). I've somewhat plagiarized some of the verbage because it's more precise than my writing.

Now for the caveat (for me, anyway)...if the timing of ice ages was set by variations in sunlight falling on a given hemisphere, why didn't the Southern Hemisphere get warmer when the Northern got colder and vice-versa? The changes in CO2 and methane gases linked the hemispheres physically warming or cooling the whole planet.

I'll quote here..."It (Antartic ice core records) strongly confirmed that the Milankovitch-cycle orbital changes initiated a powerful feedback loop The close of a glacial era came when a sunlight shift caused a slight rise of temperature, and that evidently raised the gas levels (CO2 and mmethane)...and so forth."

I think this is valid science...but if I think this is valid, I must agree with the following conclusions (that so many of you agree with) from the same paper and update my thinking that things are-a-changing and the current warming is mostly the result of adding of gases to the atmosphere.

"It's a tastey desert topping." "NO! It's a space-age floor wax." "STOP! You're ALL correct.!"

Perhaps not totally conclusive in many circles, but I found the following very interesting. It's a bit of a long read, but not entirely tedious if you are interested in the ice ages to global warming topic. Best regards...jack
wwww.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm



all best; jack
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6594 posts, RR: 6
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4127 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 22):

Sorry but do you actually think that losing a few islands is going to be worse for the global economy than neutralising the release of carbons?
Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 33):

The world changes, we change, we survive, we evolve... it's that simple.

Why do anything then really? Why clean the water supply? Why not dump raw sewage on a river? I bet its more economical to sh*t in outside your doorstep that have your city maintain an entire sewage system. After all - how did cavemen do it?

Such a defeatist attitude.

Funny, how you say "evolution". Humans evolved to THINK and to find solutions, to make life better. You seem like you do not want to evolve,..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinenorthstardc4m From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3023 posts, RR: 36
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4119 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
It's difficult enough as it is, we shouldn't be working towards the flooding of fertile coastal areas.

Even if sea levels go up by 30m we loose very little farmland.
If theres a 30m increase, it sucks for Bangladesh, Florida (but hey Disney World will get a real beach!) and Louisiana, but the effect on productive land in minimal, and a 30m increase is pretty much a doomsday scenario prediction.

And honestly, we would do alot of counteraction to prevent loss of anywhere valuable...



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4109 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
or to produce it in the first place: "When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money." It's difficult enough as it is, we shouldn't be working towards the flooding of fertile coastal areas.

A lack of ability to produce food in sufficient quantities is one half of what causes a lack of ability to pay for it.

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
Are you really completely indifferent towards the deaths of other people?

Obviously not, because I'm arguing that measures to address global warming would cause more starvation/poverty/war than the effects of global warming itself.

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
If we stopped tomorrow, it would be a disaster, but nobody is even remotely hinting at such insanity. What we need to and can do is reduce the dependency on fossil fuels through all sorts of efforts. Oil is far too versatile a raw material anyway for it to be wasted "because you can".

How do we stop global warming then? Or do you just want to curtail it enough for your own sensibilities. If so then i'm glad you appreciate there's an economic threshold, so we're really just disagreeing where that point lies. I'm arguing that the threshold probably doesn't register. Maybe your threshold is around the area of a token gesture but i'll let you expand if you wish.

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
So you're saying that there isn't one? In that case, you're confusing your own disinterest in with irrelevance of the topic.

It's unfortunate that there's a side effect of our actions. But if the benefits of our actions are greater than the losses of climate change then i don't think there's a problem per se.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 36):
Why do anything then really? Why clean the water supply? Why not dump raw sewage on a river? I bet its more economical to sh*t in outside your doorstep that have your city maintain an entire sewage system.

I've already addressed a similar argument with the London smog example. Well you can apply the same argument here because London used to be a city where people shat on their doorstep. Guess what, people don't want to live in a city with shit everywhere so installing a sewage system was economically beneficial.

Would you stop a hospital being built because it involved cutting down a tree?

[Edited 2013-04-26 09:20:35]

User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4109 times:

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
it sucks for Bangladesh

You're talking about a country of more than 150 million people. "Sucks for them" is completely inappropriate.

Apart from that, you seem completely oblivious to the locations of most large metropolitan areas: near the ocean. Just try finding new homes the inhabitants of Kobe, Kyoto, Osaka and Tokyo; Japan is mostly coastal plains and mountain ranges.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 38):
A lack of ability to produce food in sufficient quantities is one half of what causes a lack of ability to pay for it.

OK, here's a simple yes or no question: Do you agree that there are some problems that even unlimited amounts of money cannot solve?

[Edited 2013-04-26 09:29:51]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6594 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4098 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 38):

Would you stop a hospital being built because it involved cutting down a tree?

Of course not. But why wouldn't you want to plan another tree some other place to replace it?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4093 times:

For those interested in the Geopolitical consequences, I would suggest you have a read a book by Gwynne Dyer. It is called Climate Wars. Otherwise, I've posted links to some of his presentations/talks below. For the benefit of those who think that the geopolitical consequences of climate change are somehow unsubstantial, I have written a not-so-brief summary of a potential scenario outlined in Climate Wars. I apologize for this post being substantially longer than I originally intended.

The premise for this book is that when talking to various sources as a journalist, Mr Dyer became aware that various militaries around the world were starting to take note of climate change and beginning to to analyse (or have studies done) to assess this 'emerging threat to security'. The militaries want to know, how it might affect them and the role they will likely play and how they should prepare. In the book he discusses potential security scenarios that warming (and its secondary effects create).

Briefly I will talk about the science, and I will go on to the geopolitical stuff later.
The problem with global warming is that there is an expected 'point of no return' estimated to be at 3 degrees celsius or so. Once the temperature rises exceed that value (or thereabouts), the additional warmth causes its own natural reactions (called feedbacks) whose effects are such that they will cause warming on their own (similar principle to compound interest, I guess).

One such feedback is the melting of the permafrost around the Arctic - this is problematic because under the permafrost there is lots of methane (a far worse 'greenhouse gas' than carbon dioxide) which would be released into the atmosphere having a significant effect on warming. Anyway, point being that while the carbon emissions from human activities are the primary cause of the 'greenhouse' effect, we as the human race theoretically have control - we could stop the warming if we stopped all of our emissions (incredibly unlikely and not something I would advocate by any means). Once natural feedbacks, such as the melting the permafrost kick in, we don't have control. The effects likely become irreversible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release

Anyway, over to geopolitics. Where I'll jot down a few points and then give a quick scenario of the effect warming could have on a certain part of asia.
- The world's human population is rising.
- Grain production is starting to fall. http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C54
- Grains are generally sensitive to temperature changes. IE if the temperature rises too much, yield starts to fall significantly. Genetic Modification can hopefully help in this area. Food Security is a big issue.
- A warmed earth produces less grain as, while some parts (such as the siberian plain) become more productive, many others produce much less because of drought.
- Governments don't have legitimacy when their populations are starving and are at significant risk of being ousted, often by extremists - eg the famine of 1916-1917 in Russia was one of the causes of the Bolshevik Revolution. More recently the Wollo famine in Ethiopia influenced the rise of Derg in the 1970s.
- Governments will protect the interests of their population before that of their neighbours.
- People do desperate things in times of famine.

Anyway, to the potential conflict. India and Pakistan (and further downstream Bangladesh) are fed by rivers that originate in glaciers in the Tibetan Plateau. The glaciers freeze in winter, melt in spring/summer and the flow of melted glacier down the river helps each nation grow food to feed their respective populations. Pakistan gets most of its water from the Indus river which actually originates in India. There was a treaty signed several decades ago between the two nations, agreeing to how the water in the Indus River's tributaries should be shared. Apparently, India gets a fixed volume and the remainder goes to Pakistan which uses the river support a population of over 150 million people. At the moment this is all well and good; the river's flow is supposedly going to increase in the immediate future as the Tibetan Plateau melts quicker and quicker. Once the glaciers have melted however, the flow of the river is going to decrease. India is still entitled to a fixed volume of water, which means that Pakistan will be getting less and less. Currently, India's fixed volume equates to about 30% of the river's current flow, so Pakistan gets 70% (this will reduce). Pakistan will have to make do with this significantly reduced volume, despite a population expected to be higher than what it is today. What happens from here? India too will have many more mouths to feed, so it is unlikely to just give water to Pakistan. If a mass famine hits Pakistan there is the risk of an ultra extremist government gaining power. Does this mean war? Something has to give. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons so there is the potential for things to get very messy.

The above is just an example of a potential conflict caused by warming and subsequent famine, however there are many others around the globe. China, for example gets most of its water from the Tibetan Plateau as well. When there is a famine and food supply decreases, everyone else has to pay more for their food. Great for countries like New Zealand which is still expected to be bread-baskets, even after a moderate warming (and through supply and demand will likely prosper from it), but it really sucks for poor non-agriculturally productive countries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5l_0bm6ko
http://youtu.be/LVjQnaXAi6k?t=13s
I would recommend that people listen to the first several minutes of the second video, at least.

As a (reasonably) young person, I have to note that policy makers today are unlikely to be alive in 50 years time when things really will start to bite and consequences of their actions will be felt. Whereas I (and my generation) probably will. Unfortunately, this is one of those issues that can really only be dealt with on the global scale. Also, it should be noted that I was very much a 'denier' of climate change until 2008 or so.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 5):
The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.

  

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 12):
of course the earth tilts on its axis, which leads to getting warmer than "usual" and colder than "usual"

Isn't that called seasons?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 14):
It happened in 1992 after Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, and bigger eruptions such as Krakatoa also had this effect.

   Yeah, weirdly an eruption like that could actually be rather handy, despite its undesirable humanitarian effects.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 14):

There is virtually no dispute among climatologists that anthropogenic climate change is happening. This is not political, it's scientific. I certainly don't consider myself very well-versed on the subject but I'll believe a scientist before I believe someone who is uninformed and who uses anecdotal evidence and personal experience to support their opinion.

  

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
The costs of Hurricane Sandy have been estimated in the $40-50 billion range, and those sorts of storms have been predicted to become more common as a result of climate change. That'll be significant.

At the very least, people will be paying higher insurance premiums.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
If theres a 30m increase, it sucks for Bangladesh

What is the geopolitical effect of 160,000,000 Bangladeshi refugees? Particularly considering that a massive border fence has just been completed between the two nations. If there comes a day when there is no food production in bangladesh, there will be a lot of Bangladeshis competing for food elsewhere.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
30m increase is pretty much a doomsday scenario prediction.

  



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlinenorthstardc4m From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3023 posts, RR: 36
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4092 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting aloges (Reply 39):
You're talking about a country of more than 150 million people. "Sucks for them" is completely inappropriate.

Nice cherry pick and ignore the point of the sentence... I was speaking of lost farmland, nothing more... relocations of coastal cities is a different problem, and again dykes, coastal modification and other forms of engineering can be used to protect cities and areas of value.

Quoting aloges (Reply 39):
Apart from that, you seem completely oblivious to the locations of most large metropolitan areas: near the ocean. Just try finding new homes the inhabitants of Kobe, Kyoto, Osaka and Tokyo; Japan is mostly coastal plains and mountain ranges.

Arguments about Japan get complicated. Much of the (massive) port areas of the country are built on landfills at the optimal height for their functions, those should be excluded.

Average height of Greater Tokyo (port areas excluded) is ~38m ASL
Kobe 31m/ASL
Kyoto 32m/ASL
Greater Osaka 34m/ASL
Nagoya would actually be in the biggest trouble, as it's only 15m/ASL

However again a few dykes and those cities are all protected.

Now PARTS of those cities would be in trouble at 30m rise (again that is a doomsday unlikely scenario). Parts of Japan would be in trouble, but that can be said of any coastal nation. It is pointless to look at OMG this city will flood in isolation. Again we can and will adapt.


Lets use Tokyo as an example to use for what we can do to counteract the rise:

1) Flood control dyke at the entry to Tokyo Bay (Uraga Channel)
2) Dykes along the shore of Tokyo itself
3) Just raise the port areas to the new sea level.

Not insurmountable, the Netherlands have been doing it for centuries.

Relocation of the populations of Bangladesh etc is difficult but not impossible. And it wouldn't be overnight, we are talking a 40-50 YEAR migration, not a 2-3 week evacuation. Over 40-50 years many things change, just look where we were in 1973 and 1963.

[Edited 2013-04-26 09:39:42]


Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4084 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 39):
OK, here's a simple yes or no question: Do you agree that there are some problems that even unlimited amounts of money cannot solve?

Yes, of course, look at the Weimar Republic, unlimited amounts of money didn't solve that. Same as QE isn't solving today's problems. Money is just a medium of exchange.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 41):
The above is just an example of a potential conflict caused by warming and subsequent famine, however there are many others around the globe. China, for example gets most of its water from the Tibetan Plateau as well. When there is a famine and food supply decreases, everyone else has to pay more for their food. Great for countries like New Zealand which is still expected to be bread-baskets, even after a moderate warming (and through supply and demand will likely prosper from it), but it really sucks for poor non-agriculturally productive countries.

All of that may be true but think of the shit that'll kick off in the Middle East when they find out they can't sell oil any more. And think of the shit that'll kick of in China and India when they find out 2 billion people have to hault their growth because only now, after centuries of the west burning oil like there's no tomorrow are they are not allowed to do it themselves.

[Edited 2013-04-26 10:01:27]

User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4051 times:

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
Whether human activities are to blame for climate change that's where the debate begins, So what do you think?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, hell yes.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineAM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1779 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4023 times:

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
If so, why did the Ice Ages ended?! There was no humans burning fossil fuels back then.

One fact we can all agree on is the Earth's climate is continually changing. Whether human activities are to blame for climate change that's where the debate begins, So what do you think?

To the best of our knowledge at this point the answer is yes. We can think whatever we want, but science doesn't work that way. For example, there are lots of evidence that point to the validity of the Theory of Evolution, same thing in this case. We can either accept it and believe the educated guess scientists are providing us, or dismiss their hypotheses by publishing our own models and results, all the while earning a PhD in atmospheric sciences or whatever.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25247 posts, RR: 85
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 22):
Sorry but do you actually think that losing a few islands is going to be worse for the global economy than neutralising the release of carbons?

I would see the low lying islands as the canary in the mine shaft.

If they go under, quite a few of the big port cities are in trouble.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4006 times:

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 33):
Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
The costs of Hurricane Sandy have been estimated in the $40-50 billion range, and those sorts of storms have been predicted to become more common as a result of climate change. That'll be significant.

This isn't factual. Hurricanes have occurred long before man was burning oil, and there has been no increase in Hurricane, Typhoon and Monsoon activity or severity in the last 50 years, in fact over the last 100 years the severity rating is on average down.

I wouldn't go so far as to assert that it isn't factual. Hurricane frequency and intensity appear to depend on a phenomenon called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation). This is not 100% accepted, but is the current "state of the art". This appears to be linked to sea surface temperatures, which ae known to be rising.

AMO itself may also be correlated to a more global effect called THC, "ThermoHaline Circulation" which combines the effects of both temperature and salinity, and could be the principal driver of what we call the Gulf Stream. As ice melts into the northern and southern oceans, salinity will decrease, perturbing the periodicity of this effect (thought to be of the order of 1,500 years or so), More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline .

Enough perturbation in THC could pinch off the Gulf Stream, but there currently isn't enough data to really make a definitive statement. About 700-800 years ago there was a partial pinch off. Sea ice increased greatly, the Vikings had to abandon Greenland, people could skate on the Thames in London during the winter, and Europe was generally fucked for quite a while. A complete shut off of the Gulf Stream would be catastrophic, in terms of food supply certainty, economically, and politically.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3969 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 5):
The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.

Benjour mon ami!

There is a fairly comprehensive study conducted by a leading economic council for Hamburg, Germany. Unfortunately it is available only in German, but maybe a Google Translate will do a good enough job to convey the main points?

http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/38...ischen-folgen-des-klimawandels.pdf

There are more studies (in English as well) to be found here:

http://www.ecologic.eu/eu/publications

Quoting trav110 (Reply 15):

There is virtually no dispute among climatologists that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

If you travel a bit, you will find that the only dispute about climate change exists in countries that happen to have privately owned and corporately funded media. The USA, the UK and to some extent Australia are notorious for this. You will be very hard pressed to find people in continental Europe or South America that hold such views. Asia is interesting because the idea of political participation and their understanding of democracy is different from ''ours''. As a result, many (most?) people will not concern themselves with such issues. I have yet to meet Asians though that deny the existence of man-made climate change.

People of a certain level of intelligence and/or education don't deny the existence of man-made climate change worldwide. How could they though? The evidence leaves very little room for interpretation.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
The point i made is that the costs of climate change are unlikely to exceed the costs of preventing it.

If you argue that going from now to zero emissions would be economically unfeasible, then I agree with you. Unless of course, every country did it. The UK and other industrialized nations need oil and cheap coal to drive their economies. The cost of radically changing the way we do business would in any way exceed the cost of putting up with the anticipated effects that climate change will have in those regions.

But you have to look at this from a global perspective. The Maledives are going to sink in the ocean, people in Somalia will be plagued by even more droughts, etc. The poorer nations never got to benefit from the emission of green house gases to the extent the ''western world'' has, yet they'll feel the effects just as much if not more.

Personally, I don't quite understand why pollution is legal to begin with. The energy we create is only cheaper than sustainable alternatives because of the way energy is traded. Oil has no intrinsic value so therefore, following the simple dynamics of supply and demand economics, it will per definition never exceed the price people are willing to pay for it. But that is all the price of oil is really - some arbitrary value that seems affordable relative to the incomes of people. But that is not how the economy works.

In ''the free market'', externalities have to be priced into every product. If you want to release carbon into the atmosphere, you should have to pay for the clean up of it. Imagine a factory would dump their waste into the ocean, the next river or offload it into the next village because disposing of the waste would render their product unaffordable. And that is analogous to what we are doing with oil and coal - it is cheap because the price of it does not include the removal of the dirt we are leaving behind using it.

Which is why I don't understand why pollution is legal. It defies common sense, our sense of justice and every economic principle. If we produced all of our energy from renewable energy sources, the price of energy would increase compared to today's levels. But that in and of itself does not represent anything more than inflation - which is happening anyway. If every economically relevant country in the world were to change their energy production, there'd be no economic disadvantage either.

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
...or to produce it in the first place: "When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money." It's difficult enough as it is, we shouldn't be working towards the flooding of fertile coastal areas.

Most people don't understand what money is. Or what value is. Money is not more than human labor. People produce goods or services and want to trade their goods or services with those of others. Money is what we use to make those goods and services of different natures tradeable.

The problem with climate change is that human labor cannot ''repair'' damages to the environment. Of course you could argue that New Orleans benefited from 5 cents per kw/h energy, make a calculation how much more they would have spent on energy had it come from renewable energy sources, and see if that saving outweighs the cost of the re-build. Of course any intelligent person would argue that those events are caused by people who don't even live in New Orleans and that it is unfair that your personal CO2 emissions will affect others but not necessarily vice-versa. But that aside, some aspects of global warming are nothing but an economic calculation. Some. Others, like melting polar caps on the other hand, not so much.

Or, RomeoBravo, who are you gonna pay and send up to the North Pole to re-build the ice layer there? Or what magician will you hire to bring back extinct species which cause biological imbalances with all the resulting effects in nature?

Renewable energy is not that expensive. Wind power from off-shore windparks costs about 25-30 cents per kw/h. But apparently it is more important that people - who already live in abundance - can afford just as much as they can today tomorrow without being punished by higher costs of energy. People don't want to make economic concessions. They think they somehow have a right to cheap energy - without realizing that energy is only ''cheap'' if you make others pay for it. We have all the solutions to cut down our CO2 today. Plaster the deserts in solar panels, build windparks off-shore. But why invest in that when we can also spend billions of dollars in the military, no?

Maybe we should also bring back slavery. What a boon that would be to the economy.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3952 times:

Quoting something (Reply 48):
Personally, I don't quite understand why pollution is legal to begin with.

Yes it's a negative externality that has been grandfathered in of which the costs are near impossible to calculate and apportion. Certainly a pigouvian tax would be the most sensible way to address it if you were going to.

Quoting something (Reply 48):
If every economically relevant country in the world were to change their energy production, there'd be no economic disadvantage either.

No relative disadvantage but the disadvantage that we all face would be absolutely staggering.

Quoting something (Reply 48):
The energy we create is only cheaper than sustainable alternatives because of the way energy is traded.

Nonsense

Quoting something (Reply 48):
Oil has no intrinsic value

It most certainly does have intrinsic value.

Quoting something (Reply 48):
Or, RomeoBravo, who are you gonna pay and send up to the North Pole to re-build the ice layer there? Or what magician will you hire to bring back extinct species which cause biological imbalances with all the resulting effects in nature?

Why is anyone being charged to bring back a specie or re-build ice layers? The UK used to be completely forested. Who's paying to bring back those trees? Who's paying to bring back the Do do? Who's paying the pig for the ham sandwich you had for lunch? I don't condone wiping out species but everything has a price.

Quoting something (Reply 48):
But that in and of itself does not represent anything more than inflation - which is happening anyway.

Actually, it doesn't cause inflation. Inflation is only caused by an increase in the money supply

Quoting something (Reply 48):
They think they somehow have a right to cheap energy - without realizing that energy is only ''cheap'' if you make others pay for it.

Even if others aren't paying for it - and the whole premise of my argument has been that they aren't to any great extent - it's still dirt cheap.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3916 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 31):
Where did i say there was a problem?

When I ask if you think we can forget about CO2 for all future you say "not at all" and follow up with that you don't agree with "passing on our problems to future generations"

How can I understand it in any way than you agree there is a problem?


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3902 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 50):
How can I understand it in any way than you agree there is a problem?

Maybe try reading post 24 again.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 51):
Maybe try reading post 24 again.

You think I would ask if I hadn't done that? How about providing some answers instead of sidestepping?


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

All the answers are in post 24 and it's very clear. If your verbal reasoning skills are so poor you can't see what is being said then there's not any point entering into debate with you.

User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3817 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 49):
Quoting something (Reply 48):
If every economically relevant country in the world were to change their energy production, there'd be no economic disadvantage either.

No relative disadvantage but the disadvantage that we all face would be absolutely staggering.

Explain to me how.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 49):
Quoting something (Reply 48):
The energy we create is only cheaper than sustainable alternatives because of the way energy is traded.

Nonsense

Why nonsense? It is completely arbitrary what we pay people to build powerlines, windmills, solar panels etc. Just as it is arbitrary what we pay for oil. The price of oil is subject to supply and demand economics; How much oil are the oil producing countries willing to put out on the market, how much are they going to be willing to put on the market in the near future, how much demand will there be for this amount of oil. It does not at all account for any of the damages it causes which range from lung disease inside cities up to the melting of polar caps.

Nuclear power, albeit not conducive to global warming, is an even better example of this short-sighted approach to energy production. Nuclear power plants leave nuclear waste behind that will need to be stored for the next 4000-5000 years. How can storage of radioactive waste for 5000 years be cheap?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 49):
Quoting something (Reply 48):
Oil has no intrinsic value

It most certainly does have intrinsic value.

So it'd still be worth something if we managed to replace it?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 49):
I don't condone wiping out species but everything has a price.

The problem is that you need a certain level of ''nature'' around you to survive.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 49):
Quoting something (Reply 48):
But that in and of itself does not represent anything more than inflation - which is happening anyway.

Actually, it doesn't cause inflation. Inflation is only caused by an increase in the money supply

Not really. Inflation is not more than a rise of price levels resulting in a reduction of purchasing power. The price of oil for instance affects the inflation rate.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 49):
Even if others aren't paying for it - and the whole premise of my argument has been that they aren't to any great extent - it's still dirt cheap.

Dirt cheap is a clever way of putting it. However, I would need to ask you to factually support your premise, ie. that the externalities of fossil fuels don't outweigh the extra cost of alternative energies.

''We'' as a people need to understand that large projects are not unmanageable. When Eisenhower had the Interstate System built, do you think that seemed like the cheapest and easiest thing to do? No, but the users paid for it and where would the US be today without it?

You can extrapolate this experience to energy production. It would be a huge investment to cover the deserts of the USA in solar panels and build huge windparks off-shore. Critics argue that it is cheaper to produce energy locally, ie on roofs of houses, lower our energy consumption, that we need to exploit all sources of energy production (hydro, geothermal etc.) but I am not of that school of thinking. There is more than enough space in the ocean to produce all the energy we need. Europe could cover all of Algeria in solar panels and it would be enough to produce all of Europe's energy production. It would be a huge one-time investment but it would provide us and every future generation - once this investment has amortized itself - with incredibly cheap energy. There'd be the cost of maintaining those facilities, but that would be calculable unlike the price of oil or gas. There'd be no more reliance on piece of sh1t countries like Saudia Arabia or Russia, no more wars that'd have to be fought etc.

We have enough manpower on this earth, enough unemployed people and enough spending on the military or on welfare as it is. Redirect those ressources to building this infrastructure.

If you are interested, you can read up about ''Project DesertTec''. A plan to cover Algeria and Morocco in solar panels to produce Europe's energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...has-run-into-trouble-a-867077.html

You will realize that this project virtually faltered because Germans shy away from big projects, and that the rest of the EU distrusts the North African countries.

If you consider that we could generate virtually infinite amounts of energy for a one-time investment - provide all of our future generations with cheap, clean energy at consistent price rates - but don't do it because ''it seems like a lot of work'', you will realize that our limitations aren't of a financial or technological nature. We prefer immediate over delayed gratification in the form of instant profits over long term profitability. Some would argue that it makes sense to care about yourself in the today and not about the people of tomorrow. I would argue that we are not producing very useful results with the way we do things today - we fund corrupt countries (Russia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela etc.) and give all of our money to some rich oligarchs. Eventually, we will have to do all these things anways as oil and gas are both finite resources.

So why drag things out that we can do today - especially if the cost of doing so may be the environment we live in? The problem isn't money; The problem is that no country wants to see itself at an economic disadvantage over any other country. So why don't we bring back slavery to further our own economic aspirations?

If you want cheap, reliable energy for the future you will need to leave fossil fuels. I'm not saying that this is going to happen - but I am highly embarrassed by the reasons for it. According to this BBC article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20357167

China will probably provide much of the funding for those projects that are too ambitious for timid politicians of Europe. And in the end, our energy supply will be dependend on China - as opposed to Saudi Arabia, Russia, Libya etc. But as long as we didn't have to make reforms, probably worth it, right?



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3803 times:

Quoting something (Reply 54):
Explain to me how.

You can't see how we would be significantly worse off if we didn't burn fossil fuels?

Hardly seems much point continuing this conversation if you can't even figure that out. Especially as the rest of your post sounds like an advert for The Venus Project.

[Edited 2013-04-27 02:05:27]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3766 times:

Quoting something (Reply 54):
Nuclear power, albeit not conducive to global warming, is an even better example of this short-sighted approach to energy production. Nuclear power plants leave nuclear waste behind that will need to be stored for the next 4000-5000 years. How can storage of radioactive waste for 5000 years be cheap?

Spent CANDU fuel decays back to background levels (i.e., when the raw ore was mined from the ground) in about 700 years. PWR fuel is somewhat longer as it is enriched fuel so fission products are a little different.

Your assertion also ignores reprocessing spent fuel into 'new' fuel for future generations of reactors. Also that we can use thorium, one of the most abundant elements on the planet, as fuel. So the terms 'waste' and 'short-sighted' are basically political labels embraced by the anti-nuke crowd. There is more than enough fissile material available to last many thousands of years.

In Canada there is already above-ground intermediate storage of spent fuel. These are in stainless steel canisters placed in large cylindrical concrete containers inside a fenced in, passively monitored area. Not a particularly costly or manpower-intensive operation. And there is the option of removing the spent fuel for reprocessing, which is the intelligent thing to build into spent fuel management systems, as current generation reactors only extract a low percentage of the total energy in the fuel.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3743 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 55):
You can't see how we would be significantly worse off if we didn't burn fossil fuels?

I don't want to speak for anyone, but I'm 99% sure no one here is saying we should just stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, rather, invest and use more green energy and phase fossil fuels out gradually.

I see the retort you just used a lot, and I'm not saying you're using it in this way, but many people use it as a lazy and/or dishonest argument. They jump to the extreme of "burn no fossil fuels" and argue how ridiculous that is when yes, it is ridiculous, but no one (minus the extreme 0.01%) is even advocating such a silly solution



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3679 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 53):

All the answers are in post 24 and it's very clear. If your verbal reasoning skills are so poor you can't see what is being said then there's not any point entering into debate with you.

Your statements in post 24 and the rest are very clear - You can't defend your statements. They are random ramblings where each time you're challenged to connect them.

Quoting something (Reply 54):
lower our energy consumption, that we need to exploit all sources of energy production (hydro, geothermal etc.) but I am not of that school of thinking. There is more than enough space in the ocean to produce all the energy we need. Europe could cover all of Algeria in solar panels and it would be enough to produce all of Europe's energy production.

It is clear to anyone taking the time to research that we have technology to replace oil, coal and nuclear. It is a huge investment and it will take a couple of decades but only fear and lobbying from the affected industries is holding us back. Solar has reach a point where end user cost is 0.06 USD per kWh for high end commercially available systems.

The only problem with solar is that it isn't always there. This is why we need to use multiple sources. It is my expectation that one of those sources will be time shifting with the help of existing and new forms of batteries.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 56):
Your assertion also ignores reprocessing spent fuel into 'new' fuel for future generations of reactors. Also that we can use thorium, one of the most abundant elements on the planet, as fuel. So the terms 'waste' and 'short-sighted' are basically political labels embraced by the anti-nuke crowd. There is more than enough fissile material available to last many thousands of years

Nuclear lobbyists are always talking up cost of fuel as this is where nuclear shines. Problem for nuclear is that there are many other costs. Look at hoe Ontario shut down a substantial number of their reactors ( was it 8 or 12) and generate electricity from much more expensive fuels for so many years despite having made the capital investments in nuclear.

The second problem with nuclear is the waste. Sure 700 years is much less than 4,000 years but it is still many generations. Nuclear is amazing technology but reality is that it is irresponsible to burden future generations with the uncertainties of the waste when we can produce all the energy we need from renewable sources.


User currently offlinewingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 848 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3667 times:

The anthropogenic global warming theory is just a modern-day pascals wager. It's proponents believe that there's too much to lose by not believing in it, and as such treat non-believers as heretics.
Any debate or challenge to the 'science' results in childish bickering between those who have already drawn their own conclusions and those who have an open mind, the result is that it's grown to become more of a religion than a science, with 'climate scientists' being it's preachers.



Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3657 times:

Quoting wingscrubber (Reply 59):
The anthropogenic global warming theory is just a modern-day pascals wager. It's proponents believe that there's too much to lose by not believing in it, and as such treat non-believers as heretics.
Any debate or challenge to the 'science' results in childish bickering between those who have already drawn their own conclusions and those who have an open mind, the result is that it's grown to become more of a religion than a science, with 'climate scientists' being it's preachers.

You do realize that you could change the names around and describe much of the opposing side with the same description? I've seen some questionable data and name calling coming from the "non believer" side. To find truth, one must go beyond the politics of it all and listen to what the climotoglists have to say. What do the climotologists say?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3635 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 58):
Nuclear lobbyists are always talking up cost of fuel as this is where nuclear shines. Problem for nuclear is that there are many other costs. Look at hoe Ontario shut down a substantial number of their reactors ( was it 8 or 12) and generate electricity from much more expensive fuels for so many years despite having made the capital investments in nuclear.

Two, actually. Do better fact checking. These were the oldest plants around in any event.

Quoting cmf (Reply 58):
The second problem with nuclear is the waste. Sure 700 years is much less than 4,000 years but it is still many generations. Nuclear is amazing technology but reality is that it is irresponsible to burden future generations with the uncertainties of the waste when we can produce all the energy we need from renewable sources.

"Waste" ? Far better to place a future resource in a retrievable configuration than to consign it to oblivion. Unless of course you plan to grip your thighs firmly and place your head ... Future technology is built on the shoulders of current technology.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3599 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 58):
The only problem with solar is that it isn't always there. This is why we need to use multiple sources. It is my expectation that one of those sources will be time shifting with the help of existing and new forms of batteries.

The ''new rage'' is to produce excess energy which is used to electrolyse sea water. That way you produce hydrogen, which can be used for a multitude of purposes (hydrogen powered vehicles, heating, or power combustion engines to produce electricity) and clear drinking water as a side product. The latter of which makes this such an interesting proposition for Northern Africa - regions historically plagued by droughts and lack of water supply.

By the way, the project (Desertec) I linked to is carried by companies like the Deutsche Bank, Siemens, Bosch etc. Not exactly companies known for throwing their money at unprofitable, well-intended projects. If you think you can dismiss their due dilligence and research by employing an reductio ad absurdum, equating it to some ridiculous other project that may or may not have existed, it doesn't make the point he thinks he is making.

http://static.apps.abendblatt.de/pdf/wind.jpg

1. Solar panels and windmills produce energy.
2. Green energy is put into the national grid.
3. Excess energy is used to break up water into hydrogen and oxygen.
4. Hydrogen is put into the natural gas grid.
5. Heizen = Heating; Kraftstoff = Fuel for vehicles; Brennstoff = Fuel for power plants.



Quoting cmf (Reply 58):
Nuclear is amazing technology but reality is that it is irresponsible to burden future generations with the uncertainties of the waste when we can produce all the energy we need from renewable sources.

Just ask France. France has 1.3 million cubic meters (m³) of nuclear waste and is expected to have twice as much by 2030. France is 669 000km² in size. If France's area were a strip of 1m² squares, 669 000 000 meters long, every 290th of those squares would be covered by a 1x1x1m cube filled with nuclear waste. Every 300m² on average, one cubic meter of nuclear waste.

There is a nuclear reprocessing plant in a city called La Hague, which according to the ASN - the French nuclear watchdog - hasn't complied with the security guidelines for storing nuclear waste for years. The problem for France at this point is that they have simply run out of secure storage space for their nuclear waste. There is no ''clean'' solution for France's nuclear waste and yet they keep producing more of it.

Such an unsustainable energy policy can impossibly be cost-efficient.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3551 times:

Quoting wingscrubber (Reply 59):
Any debate or challenge to the 'science' results in childish bickering between those who have already drawn their own conclusions and those who have an open mind, the result is that it's grown to become more of a religion than a science, with 'climate scientists' being it's preachers.

Debate? What debate? That there is anthropogenic global warming is quite settled. It's only for folks with a political or economic dog in the race that there is any debate.

The solution is most certainly up for discussion at this time, yes. But nobody who actually knows anything about this stuff is "bickering" about the cause. There's a few denier cranks out there, but they're either crazy, misinformed, or have an interest in looking the other way.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

Quoting something (Reply 62):
Quoting cmf (Reply 58):
Nuclear is amazing technology but reality is that it is irresponsible to burden future generations with the uncertainties of the waste when we can produce all the energy we need from renewable sources.

Just ask France. France has 1.3 million cubic meters (m³) of nuclear waste and is expected to have twice as much by 2030. France is 669 000km² in size. If France's area were a strip of 1m² squares, 669 000 000 meters long, every 290th of those squares would be covered by a 1x1x1m cube filled with nuclear waste. Every 300m² on average, one cubic meter of nuclear waste.

Depends on how you define waste. In Canada, and I suspect France, we include paper lab smocks, booties, flasks, pipettes, and beakers as waste. These occupy a fairly substantial volume but are hardly a significant health hazard, and, since they contain no fissile material, do not require "secure storage". Probably less radioactive material trapped in the lab equipment than you would find in a garden variety smoke detector.

Spent fuel represents a different problem due to a) initial high radiation levels (and temperature), and b) they DO contain substantial amounts of fissile material that could be a lure to those with bad intentions. However, trying to steal a fuel rod that is still pretty hot is a death sentence, unless you're prepared to use robots - which is what we do. If the 'bad guys' aren't prepared to come to the show with the same expertise - which would perforce give away the secret - they'd likely die a terrible death. Unless their organisation is prepared to wait a couple of centuries at least.

If you want the option of future access to spent fuel, above-ground modular storage makes a lot of sense. It's also fairly inexpensive. If your intent is to simply dispose of the spent fuel permanently, deep geologic disposal is a demonstrated, viable method, Much more expensive, as you're basically digging a mine, and will need to monitor groundwater to track any b had it's share of problems.reach of the (multiple) isolation barriers. You may find this educational:

http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publica.../Managing-Spent-Fuel-Sept-2011.pdf

Section on Canada's activity in this area starts on page 20, I believe.

The following describes Canada's above-ground modular storage system. This is not intended to be a permanent storage facility, but basically gives nuclear plant operators the luxury of taking more time to decide what to do in the end.

http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/...sion-eight-a/session-8a-canada.pdf

Seems a lifetime ago but I did some of the commissioning work on the prototype canisters.

Quoting something (Reply 62):
There is a nuclear reprocessing plant in a city called La Hague, which according to the ASN - the French nuclear watchdog - hasn't complied with the security guidelines for storing nuclear waste for years. The problem for France at this point is that they have simply run out of secure storage space for their nuclear waste. There is no ''clean'' solution for France's nuclear waste and yet they keep producing more of it.

Cap de la Hague was a 'first of kind' in Europe and has for sure had its; share of problems. Once in operation, it is difficult and quite expensive to physically change the plant operation methodology. Not impossible, but difficult. If ASN are mandating updated policies, as opposed to actual physical changes, then that's a horse of a different colour.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2724 posts, RR: 8
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3427 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
Is the temp raising faster because of human activity?
Quoting aloges (Reply 2):
The pace of the current change cannot be explained with natural phenomena.

What rate of rise. There has been no warming for some 15 years. And it has actually been cooling in the near term.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
While it is getting warmer near ground

Because of UHI effect.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
Night temperatures near ground are climbing slightly faster than day temperatures.

Because of UHI effect. Not becasue it is warming across the planet.

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
The costs of Hurricane Sandy have been estimated in the $40-50 billion range, and those sorts of storms have been predicted to become more common as a result of climate change. That'll be significant

What sort of storm? Sandy was a normal storm that just happened to meet with another weather system and toss in coming ashore with the highest tide of the month and you had some flooding and storm surge. There is no evidencre tha this storm was caused by "global warming".



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2724 posts, RR: 8
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png

Epic fail for the computer models. Garbage in and you get garbage out as the old saying goes. Since the Satellites have been up we have .3 degrees of warming..Where is that rate of pace that they keep talking about?



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 66):

Impressive theory. Unfortunately, most of Dr Roy Robson's theories have been disproven.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1987

Or more specificially on his ''climate models''

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cont...pcc-temp-projections-accurate.html



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2724 posts, RR: 8
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3052 times:

Quoting something (Reply 67):
Impressive theory. Unfortunately, most of Dr Roy Robson's theories have been disproven

Who is Dr Roy Robson and where did I mention his theory?

And you are going to use that skeptical science site as proof of disproving theories...   



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 68):
Who is Dr Roy Robson and where did I mention his theory?

You're using the chart he made and don't know who he is.... Doesn't sound very informed.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 68):
And you are going to use that skeptical science site as proof of disproving theories...

When you use a sceptical site...


User currently offlineLjungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 907 posts, RR: 36
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2964 times:

Something #67
cmf #69

https://www.google.se/search?q=Roy+Robson&aq=f&oq=Roy+Robson&aqs=chrome.0.57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=sv&gs_rn=12&gs_ri=psy-ab&pq=roy%20robson&cp=3&gs_id=c&xhr=t&q=dr%20Roy%20Robson&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=dr+Roy+Robson&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.bGE&fp=554dce124e416c80&biw=1280&bih=909

If Roy Robson (?) know anything about climate seems unclear, maybe you have misunderstood the name of Dr Roy Spencer!?

Anyway, when we now are in 2013 I am more than amazed how many people that still actually believe that there is a disaster coming in the form of global warming caused by CO2.

Remember that all those people/prophets that say like "the science is settled", "consensus" "worser that we believed" and so on mostly have built their career and their whole life arounfd this cause.

If they should confess that they were wrong, they should lose everything.

Just follow the money, that gives a good clue to why CAGW has been pushed so hard to the public.

Take a look at the real, quite boring, world where you can measure temperatures and sea levels.

Sea levels are rising in the same "speed", roughly, since 1850. Around 1.2 mm/yr. (Yes, its downgraded to that when previous mistakes were corrected. Flooded cities and islands, anyone?

Then the rising temperatures: WHERE on this earth have it now become dangerously hot, AND HOW HOT IS THAT?

Do not post links and maps from the usual alarmist sites/blogs, just answer those simple questions.

Those claiming a disaster are on its way should be delivering the proofs that the claims are true!


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2959 times:

Ljungdahl,

Your posts is telling me that you did not understand one single thing about global warming.

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 70):
Around 1.2 mm/yr. (Yes, its downgraded to that when previous mistakes were corrected.

Bull. It is 3.2 mm per year - that's about 60 percent more than the 2007 IPCC report expected.

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 70):
Flooded cities and islands, anyone?

You mean Pagan? And have you talked to anyone from say, Vanuatu about global warming recently?

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 70):
Then the rising temperatures: WHERE on this earth have it now become dangerously hot, AND HOW HOT IS THAT?

Really, that's a statement about as "smart" as the claim the A380 could not fly because it was too big once was. You don't have a clue what the scientists are actually saying, do you?
You know what? That's okay. You don't need to know everything or be interested in everything that goes around, even if it *is* as important as global warming is. But than just "shut up" and don't pretend to know best. What you just wrote must be one of the most stupidest things I have read on a.net, and that really says something.

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 70):
Just follow the money,

Then you end up where the deniers are, most notably the coal and oil industry.

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 70):
"the science is settled", "consensus"

Yes, science is settled, yes there is a broader consensus than basically anywhere else in science, no matter what topic you pick.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineLjungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 907 posts, RR: 36
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2938 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 71):
Ljungdahl,

Your posts is telling me that you did not understand one single thing about global warming.

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 70):
Around 1.2 mm/yr. (Yes, its downgraded to that when previous mistakes were corrected.

Bull. It is 3.2 mm per year - that's about 60 percent more than the 2007 IPCC report expected.

Maybe you missed how this fellows see it? Maybe they also is a part of "coal and oil industry"?

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLev..._Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 71):
You mean Pagan? And have you talked to anyone from say, Vanuatu about global warming recently?
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 71):
Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 70):
Then the rising temperatures: WHERE on this earth have it now become dangerously hot, AND HOW HOT IS THAT?

Really, that's a statement about as "smart" as the claim the A380 could not fly because it was too big once was. You don't have a clue what the scientists are actually saying, do you?
You know what? That's okay. You don't need to know everything or be interested in everything that goes around, even if it *is* as important as global warming is. But than just "shut up" and don't pretend to know best. What you just wrote must be one of the most stupidest things I have read on a.net, and that really says something.

Oh, I did not use any hard words as you did right now. Was this your best arguments? I just asked two very simple and plain questions which you avoided to answer.

Might the reason for that be that you do not know the answer? That´s okay, the "settled science" can not provide an answer either.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 71):
Then you end up where the deniers are, most notably the coal and oil industry.

Oh, one more strong argument!

How come that so many alarmists just fall in that kind of thinking you did right now? This is what alarmist blogs and sites often claims, never ever able to produce even one piece of evidence for the statement.
Why should "the coal and oil industry" in the first place waste money against their own interests?
"The coal and oil industry" is not that, but energy supplying industry that EARNS money on "Cap and Trade", investing a lot of money in the completely useless windmill-industry (which is very inefficient, and increases the need of fossil fuels such as "coal and oil").

I can see that you are from Germany, a very nice country that I have had the pleasure to visit several times.

Unfortunately, so have your government now decided to close down your well-working nuclear power plants and decided to go for "renewables".

Which means a lot of windmills destroying the landscape for no good at all. Because windmills can not deliver on-demand so when there is too little (or too much) wind you need a backup power source that has to be in standby-mode all the time.

And this backup power is... tadaaaa... New Coal power plants!

The fossil fuel industry (which also do business with the useless "biofuels" for cars that increase, among other problems, the starvation in countries in the third world).

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 71):
Yes, science is settled, yes there is a broader consensus than basically anywhere else in science, no matter what topic you pick.

Aha, but have you maybe considered exactly what the science are settled about? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the temperature has increased 0.8°C since 1850?

That is not the issue. The issue is about those large runaway effects that says basically:

More CO2 -> higher temperatures -> more water vapour -> higher temperatures -> more water vapour and so on.

That one is just a hypothesis.

Which also is wrong, because no observations can confirm any increase of water vapour in the atmosphere.


And oh, I almost forgot:

Sea levels again: Since last ice age, global sea levels have rised with about 120 meters.

How could this Coral Islands exist at all today, when the sea levels could differ so much?

(Yes, I know the answer but I think other people could do a little search on the net by themself to find out the reason).


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 70):
If Roy Robson (?) know anything about climate seems unclear, maybe you have misunderstood the name of Dr Roy Spencer!?

Yes it should have been Spencer. Shouldn't reply just before rushing out. The rest still stand.

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 70):
Those claiming a disaster are on its way should be delivering the proofs that the claims are true!

It has been delivered over and over again. Every claim that it isn't solid has been rebuked over and over again.

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 72):
That one is just a hypothesis

No, that is basic science. If you deny that you may just as well go back and question gravity and claim earth is flat.


User currently offlinenorthstardc4m From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3023 posts, RR: 36
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2919 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting cmf (Reply 73):
It has been delivered over and over again. Every claim that it isn't solid has been rebuked over and over again.

Disaster has not been proven at all. Even the IPCC has told the world that the effects of global warming may not be seriously felt for generations. The long term effects of CO2 alone are mostly unknown and theoretical (and debated) and more research is needed, but the effect of other greenhouse gases are known and need to be reduced.

I'll say this again, there is fear mongering, there is denial, there is confusion... but whatever you believe, there is proof humanity IS affecting the climate of this planet. But we as humans also have the ability to adapt and learn... and we have become very very good at building things to protect where and how we live, work and play. We do not need to destroy our way of life to prevent global climate change, we can adapt over time and manage it.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 74):
Disaster has not been proven at all. Even the IPCC has told the world that the effects of global warming may not be seriously felt for generations. The long term effects of CO2 alone are mostly unknown and theoretical (and debated) and more research is needed, but the effect of other greenhouse gases are known and need to be reduced.

I took his use of disaster as hyperbole. The effects of CO2 are not in doubt, the details are.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 74):
We do not need to destroy our way of life to prevent global climate change, we can adapt over time and manage it.

Pretty sure we can. If we couldn't it wouldn't make any sense to suggest we deal with it. Also sure global warming is more like a cheap wine than a good, it doesn't get better by waiting.


User currently offlineLjungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 907 posts, RR: 36
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2894 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 73):
Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 72):
That one is just a hypothesis

No, that is basic science. If you deny that you may just as well go back and question gravity and claim earth is flat.

Basic science is to explain observations with your theory/hypothesis.

If they do not match, is the hypothesis or the observations wrong then in your view?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 76):
Basic science is to explain observations with your theory/hypothesis.

If they do not match, is the hypothesis or the observations wrong then in your view?

In my view, you're making a logical fallacy by trying to suggest it is always the same one that is wrong. You want me to say the hypothesis is wrong but it can also be that your observations are wrong.

There is no question that increased CO2 cause increase in temperature. Nor is it a question that higher temperature cause higher levels of water vapor. All well established. The questions are in regards to what else is influential and how much.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 72):
I just asked two very simple and plain questions which you avoided to answer.

Why bother? We have had lots of discussions here on a.net, you don't sound like anyone who asks honest questions because he requests information, and there is plenty of information freely available.
You can't even get your facts straight when you try hard and provide a link:

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 72):
Maybe you missed how this fellows see it? Maybe they also is a part of "coal and oil industry"?

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLev...2.pdf

And where does the report say global sea levels would rise by an average of only 1.2 mm/ year?
Besides, the report has been outdated since November 2012.

And this goes on. Nothing of what you have said so far holds any water or is of any relevance. Please inform yourself, you could start here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2865 times:

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 76):

I agree with what you said earlier... let's avoid where the money is and avoid the politics. We can all agree that special interests and politics has distorted this whole debate.

What do the independent scientists who only work to further scientific research have to say about all this? Please provide credible, peer reviewed literature endorsed by the scientific community, not globalwarmingsucks.org (that goes for both sides of the debate, btw, not picking on you)

Also, be careful of where you get information and what contrary information seems to disprove. Not saying you did this, but I've seen people say "it's colder than normal here, I guess 100% of it all is a sham!" Er, no



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineLjungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 907 posts, RR: 36
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):
What do the independent scientists who only work to further scientific research have to say about all this?

If we define "independent", then all the scientists that are funded by governments (or organisations controlled by them as the IPCC) can not be considered, as the goverments demand certain results from their "investments".

I have, as others reading here, noted that there are always some central questions about this coming disaster that remain unanswered.

Always the same questions.

Science is settled, but no one can point out the places where it has become dangerously hot in the world or even give a clue on how hot that could be.

Then all those climate refugees, millions of them, that should come.

Where are they?

It is okay if nobody answer these questions, it´s fully understandable.

No answer is also an answer.


User currently offlineLjungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 907 posts, RR: 36
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

The sooner people realize what actually happens, the better:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/0...resource-misuse-on-a-global-scale/


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1374 posts, RR: 4
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 80):
Science is settled, but no one can point out the places where it has become dangerously hot in the world or even give a clue on how hot that could be.

The consensus among climate scientists is that those are likely future events.

Nobody's claiming the world is too hot to inhabit yet. There's no point in you arguing against a theory when you haven't understood what that theory states.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 80):
If we define "independent", then all the scientists that are funded by governments (or organisations controlled by them as the IPCC) can not be considered, as the goverments demand certain results from their "investments".

That is tin hat territory.

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 80):
Always the same questions.

Science is settled, but no one can point out the places where it has become dangerously hot in the world or even give a clue on how hot that could be.

Then all those climate refugees, millions of them, that should come.

Why don't you tell us where next plane will crash. Just because it can't be said exactly where, when and how doesn't mean that we don't know it will happen.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2724 posts, RR: 8
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

Quote:
New data falsifies basis of man-made global warming alarm, shows water vapor feedback is negative
Physicist Clive Best has analyzed the latest NASA satellite and radiosonde data to find that global water vapor has declined despite the consensus belief among climate scientists that it would rise in response to man-made carbon dioxide. Dire predictions of global warming all rely on positive feedback from water vapor
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/20...a-falsifies-basis-of-man-made.html

Numerous new studies coming out debunking the alarmist vapor feedback.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Apr_2013_v5.5.png

No out of control warming here.

Quote:
Severe Weather Drought: Tornadoes drop to a new all time record low, major hurricane absence is setting a new record every day. In a blow to those that want to link increased severe weather with global warming/climate change, a new record low has been set according to NOAA tornado data. At the same time, it has been 2750 days (7 years, 6 months, 11 days) since the last major Hurricane (Cat 3 or greater) hit the USA on October 24th 2005 when hurricane Wilma made landfall. Each new day is a new record in this major hurricane drought.



Essay by Harold Brooks, NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/0...es-drop-to-new-record-alltime-low/

The alarmist keep changing the name or raising and lowering the bar every week yet nothing they have said that will happen over the last twenty years has happened. Doea a minor greenhouse gas (CO2) have an effect on the system? yes. Is it the driver of the climate? No. Please take your Socialist/green religion and move along and leave the rest of us alone.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2724 posts, RR: 8
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2688 times:



15 years of no warming according to the Met office which is the Vatican of the religion of global warming...


http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/images/OHCA_curve_2012.png

And basically ten years of no rise in the Ocean heat content...


http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/21/c...erature-has-dropped-1c-since-1990/

Another article shouing the massaging of the numbers.

The religion of global warming will crumble one day like the end of the Soviet empire.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8535 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2668 times:

Do you believe global deforestation was done by men, or some other creature such as goblins?

Do you believe coal mining and oil wells were built and operated at large volume by human hands, or was it again fairies, dinosaurs and goblins?

The answer to this question answers your question about how and why the atmosphere is changing.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2663 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 85):
15 years of no warming according to the Met office

According to the tabloid Daily Mail (this is where your graph comes from) *not* the MET.
This is what MET says:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how

Quoting windy95 (Reply 85):
And basically ten years of no rise in the Ocean heat content...


Why is that? Due to the cold glacier water flowing into the oceans - or what are the reasons? Why is that graph proof of false AGW science?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 85):
Another article shouing the massaging of the numbers.

Article by Rainer Hoffmann, who happens to be an idiot - plain and simple. Mr. Hoffmann hates renewable energy - he's not skeptical of it but hates it. He maintains a weird blog claiming the proponents of renewable energy were evil and what not.
This should give you an idea:
Quoting windy95's article:
Stunningly, he (Mr. Hoffmann) shows that something is not right with the figures coming from the world’s leading climate experts. The figures tell us the mean global surface temperature has dropped 1°C over the last 25 years. At that rate, we’ll be in an ice age by the year 2100!


Guess what: There won't be an ice age in 2100. This decade is warmer than the previous decade. The previous decade was warmer than the one before - and so on. Temperatures didn't drop.

You still didn't post anything written by a climate scientist Windy ...



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

Anyway, For those of you that care, here is a recent blog containing the fact that 97% of published paper's by those that study climate change for a living believe it is man made.



http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...Masters/comment.html?entrynum=2400


97% is about as close to guaranteed man made as you are going to get.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineAM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1779 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2640 times:

Quoting Ljungdahl (Reply 80):
Science is settled, but no one can point out the places where it has become dangerously hot in the world or even give a clue on how hot that could be.

Then all those climate refugees, millions of them, that should come.


Not too hot to inhabit of course. It's been said by scientists that my city has become 3C hotter based on historic records of the past 100 years. I don't have any trouble believing that, as 30C days are becoming more common whereas in the past, say 15 or 20 years ago, 26 or 28C where the max. Hate it. Can't sleep comfortably as we haven't had the need for AC before.

Also, it has been demonstrated that glaciers of the nearby volcanoes have shrunk considerably. I'm old enough to remember the year round snow cover. That's almost gone now to the point that they rarely have snow anymore even in winter. Bear in mind these are 5000+ m high. The glaciers of course, are gone, at least in one of them. That can't be good for the already low drinking water supply. Less water means people are, in effect, poorer. Maybe not to the point of becoming a refugee for now, but it is a problem nonetheless.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2619 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 85):

Where is the peer reviewed literature, sir? Your credentials only go so far in the scientific community... for your research to have any merit you need it to be replicated and peer reviewed.

What are the masses of climatologists saying???



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2573 times:

Quoting AM744 (Reply 89):
. I don't have any trouble believing that, as 30C days are becoming more common whereas in the past, say 15 or 20 years ago, 26 or 28C where the max. Hate it. Can't sleep comfortably as we haven't had the need for AC before.

But that's not the point AM744. The point is more extreme weather causing severe damages, higher sea levels causing more damage, faster extinction rates of species, expanding deserts, migration, food issues.

Or to put it the other way around:




I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2573 times:

Quoting something (Reply 48):
In ''the free market'', externalities have to be priced into every product.

A very good point, though people tend to forget this.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 71):
Then you end up where the deniers are, most notably the coal and oil industry.

Keep in mind that in certain parts of the world this issue is one based on ideologies, not facts. Not believing in climate change has become of an identifier of one's devotion to certain political groups/causes. Rather than 'I don't believe in climate change because my various readings into the topic has led me to believe that the planet's warming is natural' people's justification of their viewpoint becomes 'I am a conservative...therefore I believe in more freedom, less government, I don't believe in climate change and I oppose abortion'. It is essentially like a club in many political contexts. This means that the issues get intertwined together. The article below reinforces this belief; people (conservatives and some moderates) feel that buying a lightbulb that 'protects the environment' means that they identify with a certain political group (liberals, I guess) - something they disdain. The net result being that they would rather pay more for electricity than to be seen by their peers (and themselves too, I guess) as being part of a certain political movement.

Additionally you get people like Christopher Monckton who professionally travel around the world trying to mix climate change denial with other conservative causes. As someone who is both quite conservative and who believes that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat that the world has to deal with, I find this immensely frustrating. Essentially it boils down to anti-intellectualism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-shoppers-turned-off-eco-lightbulb

Quoting Flighty (Reply 86):
Do you believe global deforestation was done by men, or some other creature such as goblins?

Do you believe coal mining and oil wells were built and operated at large volume by human hands, or was it again fairies, dinosaurs and goblins?

   It regularly amazes me how many people think that billions and billions of tonnes of gases (mainly, but not by any means limited to, CO2) can be pumped into the atmosphere with apparently no effect. Even if one doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change, one must surely believe it will have some effect on something? I wonder how many climate skeptics also don't believe in other well proven phenomenon such as acid rain?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/.../06/food-fao-idUSL5E8N660V20121206



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineAM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1779 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2552 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 91):

But that's not the point AM744. The point is more extreme weather causing severe damages, higher sea levels causing more damage, faster extinction rates of species, expanding deserts, migration, food issues.

I agree. I was just trying to reinforce the fact that I do think global warming is happening based on my own experiences. I'm fully aware that consecuences go way beyond the somewhat trivial examples I posted. I think the second part of my original post goes more to the point. Regards.


User currently offlineL0VE2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 1571 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2304 times:

I still don't think it's possible to prove with 100% certainty that humanity is the main cause of global warming. It's been an interesting discussion, thanks to everyone who participated.

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 95, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2282 times:

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 94):

I still don't think it's possible to prove with 100% certainty that humanity is the main cause of global warming. It's been an interesting discussion, thanks to everyone who participated.

Why does it matter if it is 100% man made or not? Isn't it the effects of global warming and what we can do to prevent it that matters?


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 96, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2283 times:

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 94):
I still don't think it's possible to prove with 100% certainty that humanity is the main cause of global warming.

Where do you have 100% certainty? Do you need 100% certainty before you start doing something?

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 91):




I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2724 posts, RR: 8
Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

Quote:
As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_so...ation_global_warming_debunked.html

Interesting..So if CO2 helps keep heat in I guess it can also help keep heat out? Imagine that.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 98, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2119 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 97):
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_so...ation_global_warming_debunked.html

Interesting..So if CO2 helps keep heat in I guess it can also help keep heat out? Imagine that

Another article written poorly. Here is it is in simpler terms. CO2 molecules reflect heat, whether it is from the Sun , or from the earth. The article you referenced was written by a toddler or their equivalent, and was not the conclusions drawn by any NASA report.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 99, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2060 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 97):
Interesting..So if CO2 helps keep heat in I guess it can also help keep heat out? Imagine that.

Uhhh, I'm not trying to throw out what you say, I always try and have an open mind, but reading the actual NASA thing and then the website you linked don't really seem to have much to do with each other. Can you, using ONLY the NASA article, explain how CO2 is cooling the Earth and has been?

The article you linked seems to go a totally different direction



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 100, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2029 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 97):
So if CO2 helps keep heat in I guess it can also help keep heat out? Imagine that.

No need, really.

It is well understood that and not at all new that less than half of Sun's energy entering atmosphere does not reach Earth's surface directly. Actually, the amount of atmospheric back-radiation is higher, greenhouse gases from fossil fuels add to that already higher amount.
You *still* won't find anything on NASA's website that supports your uneducated opinion nor the quote you provided.

And now let's take a look at you source (naturalnews.com, in case you didn't notice):

"NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget) is a website founded by Mike "the Health Ranger" Adams. The site promotes almost every sort of medical woo known, though it specializes in vaccine denialism,[1] AIDS/HIV denial,[2] quack cancer medicine[3] and conspiracy theories about modern medicine.[4] Even other quacks think it's a quack site.[5] The site has recently expanded its outlook to become an outlet for extreme environmentalism and conspiracy theorizing about Obama and gun control.

If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong. "

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 101, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2021 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 98):
CO2 molecules reflect heat, whether it is from the Sun

Well, that would be a tad too simplistic ... but what the hell.

CO2, as well as other greenhouse gases, absorb (not reflect, contrary to what the article might say) energy of a specific wavelength (or band of frequencies), because they are opaque to this particular wavelength.
Every structure that absorbs energy, emits energy in all directions equally (part of Kirchhoff's Radiation Law). Energy coming directly from the sun is normally too high in energy to get absorbed by CO2 or Methane.

[Edited 2013-05-24 03:33:06]


I support the right to arm bears
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Global Warming... Is There Anything It Can't Do? posted Mon Jun 18 2007 23:55:47 by MDorBust
Is It Really That Cold? posted Thu Dec 20 2007 07:03:57 by Farcry
Do You Believe Global Warming Is Real? (1 Wrd Ans) posted Wed Dec 19 2007 09:29:32 by Deaphen
OK, Naysayers: Global Warming Is Real posted Thu Jun 22 2006 20:31:18 by Boeing757/767
Is It Really Totaled? posted Mon May 22 2006 00:41:21 by BR715-A1-30
Is It Really Called "Kurdistan"? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 06:39:00 by Marco
Spencer Tunick: Is It Really Art? posted Mon Mar 20 2006 08:41:42 by 9VSPO
Bush Approval Rate. Is It Really That Important? posted Mon Oct 31 2005 20:11:25 by Aleksandar
Is It Really This Strict In Dubai? posted Wed Apr 27 2005 19:45:03 by KLMA330
Light Rail: Is It Really All It's Hyped Up To Be? posted Sat Apr 16 2005 18:13:48 by Matt D