How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: Re: Earth is actually cooling
ClearlyThinking wrote:
Nearly all scientists agree that the Earth went through a similar Global Warming cycle about 10,000 years ago.
If someone can explain to me how humans caused the warming of our planet then, I'd like to hear it. How many cars were on the planet then? How much carbon dioxide were humans generating then?
You people are the same type of people who warned us the sky was falling during Y2K. And by the way, in case you haven't noticed, the Earth has actually been cooling since 1979.
Enough already. Go sell crazy someplace else.
Oh Hey Fred! How's things at the Singer foundation going?
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: Re: Earth is actually cooling
ClearlyThinking wrote:
the Earth has actually been cooling since 1979.
Please provide your source and dataset for this rather unusual declaration.
As for the warming "10 000 years ago" I guess you are talking about the warming at the start of the Holocene that ended the last of the Plieocene glacials, the Wurm glacial (as it is called in Europe). This was due to the changes in the earths orbit and orientation of the so called Milankovitch cycles. The changes from these lead to slight cooling or warmings at the poles that then gain from feeback mechanism, in the case of the holocene warming a positive feedback of a warming world melting snow and sea ice, absorbing more heat increasing the temperature of the earth and so on.
This process tends to take thousands of years to work through, the current anthropogenic gases forcing the climate change are suspected of now acting in decades.
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 985 Location: Where walking makes you a wierdo
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:29 am Post subject: Re: Earth is actually cooling
ClearlyThinking wrote:
You people are the same type of people who warned us the sky was falling during Y2K. And by the way, in case you haven't noticed, the Earth has actually been cooling since 1979.
Enough already. Go sell crazy someplace else.
You People? This is an oil depletion awareness website.
I don't personally worry too much about CO2 because I believe we are on the verge of drastic reductions in the amount of carbon based fuel that is economically worthwhile to extract. Our production will drop not because it is impossible to increase, but because the cost of producing more fuel will be greater than it's value. _________________ The knowledge to survive post peak will not come from our laboratories. It will come from our museums.
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject: Re: Global Cooling
One argument which the alarmists use to back their claims, is that data from boreholes in the Antarctic ice show that temperature and CO2 correlate very well. What they don't tell the public, however, is that correlation does not prove causation. And, in fact, the cause is precisely the opposite of what the alarmist would like you to belive. In the past couple of years, new and better analysis of the Antarctic ice data, giving a better time resolution, have shown that first temperature rises, and then carbon dioxide levels increase. It is the temperature increase which causes the increase in carbon dioxide and not the other way around. The extra CO2 could at most add a little extra warming to what is going on, but not even that is certain.
Joined: Jan 25, 2006 Posts: 82 Location: Western Maine, USA
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: Global Cooling
Revi wrote:
The concentration of CO2 went from 200 to 380 ppmillion in the past 100 years. There is a very strong correlation between CO2 levels and warming. The spike in CO2 and warming is followed by a cooling trend, that leads to an ice age. The "normal" state of the earth in the past million years is an ice age. We are in an interglacial period, but our burning of fossil fuels may tip us back into an ice age. The melting of Greenland may screw up the North Atlantic Oscillation, which could cause Northern Europe to get colder because the Gulf Stream can't reach it, since it's buried under all that cold glacial meltwater. It's happened before. There was a huge dam near Hudson's bay that let loose enough cold water that the climate stayed cold for a thousand years or so.
We don't really know what we're messing with. I think that if we keep running the heater with all the windows open, the landlord will shut off the heat. Don't mess with Gaia. Lovelock thinks that GW is on a track to cook the planet into inhospitable deserts and that it won't recover for 10, 000 years. Global warming is happening 3 times faster than the most dire predictions. Besides, why not do something about it? It would solve a lot of our problems with peak oil and slow down the consumption of finite resources. Why is that a bad thing?
Because Poverty SUCKS worse than a little climate change.
All honest Climate Change mitigation purveyors admit the wealthy world’s standard of living must be reduced significantly to meet their atmospheric carbon goals. Unless someone comes up with a way to address climate change without reducing my standard of living, I'll take my chances on climate change. I'm 42; I'll be dead by the time the worst effects of climate change really start to cause significant problems for me here in Western Maine USA.
I refuse to live like someone in Spain or Portugal, never mind SE Asia or sub-Saharan Africa based on a computer model of the future. Especially a computer model of something as poorly understood as global climate.
As I said, Poverty Sucks worse than just about anything, other than being dead or in prison. Very few American are going to vote for a lower standard of living when they understand just how costly reducing carbon emissions will be.
Joined: Aug 26, 2005 Posts: 971 Location: "Mad as Hell !"
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Global Cooling
veliger wrote:
Because Poverty SUCKS worse than a little climate change.
All honest Climate Change mitigation purveyors admit the wealthy world’s standard of living must be reduced significantly to meet their atmospheric carbon goals. Unless someone comes up with a way to address climate change without reducing my standard of living, I'll take my chances on climate change. I'm 42; I'll be dead by the time the worst effects of climate change really start to cause significant problems for me here in Western Maine USA.
I refuse to live like someone in Spain or Portugal, never mind SE Asia or sub-Saharan Africa based on a computer model of the future. Especially a computer model of something as poorly understood as global climate.
As I said, Poverty Sucks worse than just about anything, other than being dead or in prison. Very few American are going to vote for a lower standard of living when they understand just how costly reducing carbon emissions will be.
This is your typical, I don't give a rat's ass about anyone else but myself attitude, that got us here in the first place. Your blinders are on and you ignore the truth for the very reasons you describe. I doub't many people in Spain or Portugal are in envy of your indulgent excesses at the expense of the rest of the world. Sorry, but your comfortable little life will be changing on a number of fronts.
It's not just a "little climate change" and its not a mild liquid fuel problem. While you may pass away before the worst of it, I'm sure your legacy to future generations will be much appreciated by them.
As David Green, professor of political science at Hofstra University, recently wrote...
Quote:
What they'll say is probably unprintable in any family newspaper, that's for sure. But in-between the expletives I think you'd be likely to find words like ... "unconscionable" ... "breathtakingly stupid" ... "astonishingly selfish" ... and, "If you weren't already dead I'd kill you!"
_________________ The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
Last edited by Lore on Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: Global Cooling
Actually, they made a lead ballon on myth busters and did, in fact, get it to float. Simple physics - the mass of air displaced by by the balloon was greater than the mass of the lead and the filler gas. Because of the relative densities of the fluids involved, making a lead boat float would be easier.
OilIsMastery wrote:
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
malcomatic_51 wrote:
Lead aircraft do not fly. A lead balloon will not float.
Why not?
I can give you a hint: it's not because of global warming.
"Common sense" arguments applied to evaluating a physical process sometimes work. On the other hand, if you apply common sense based on only a subset of the data to try to make a sweeping conclusion about the outcome of a process, you're more likely to come up with an erronius result.
For instance:
OilIsMastery wrote:
You'll never be able to pump as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as a volcano does. Why bother?
A large volcano? All volcanos? Some small volcanos?
Comon sense tells us "Volcanos release greenhouse gasses." This is true, to some extent, but let's look at the data:
The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).
Well there's CO2 for sure, and CO, which we can presume will convert into CO2 eventually, but up at the top of the list, we find H2O.
But let's look deeper. At a "hotspot" location, we see that H2O comprises 37.1% of the gas released, and CO2 makes up 48.9%. This looks like a good canditate to contribute to GHG. Looking further however, we see that two other types of volcanos (divergent plate, and convergent plate) produce far less CO2 percentage wise - ranging from 1.44% to 11.3% with the vast majority of gasses released again being H2O.
We also see a good amount of Sulfur aerosols emitted, which actually act to cool the troposphere while warming the stratosphere.
Interesting. Let's look at CO2 emissions:
Quote:
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.
That seems like a lot. How could we even come close to emitting that much with our puny little cars and factories?
Quote:
Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006)
Looks like our puny little cars kick out about 30 times the amount emitted by volcanos each year.
30 times as much.
Also of note, a portion of the gas emitted by sub-marine volcanos is dissolved in ocean and doesn't make it into the atmosphere to create warming effects.
I'm not giong to continue on and categorically shred your points, because I think you get the point. It's ok to come on here and argue your point of view with facts (things that can be proven).
But to come on here and call people "wing-nuts, crazy," and make ad hominem attacks...is just well, to be completely honest, an insult to this community, and a waste of our time and mental energy reading and responding to your posts.
I'm trying not to come down too hard here. I'm all for constructive discussion. But if you're going to state a falsehood as fact, just... for everyone's sake and your own credibility, just skip it.
Last edited by jbrovont on Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Aug 26, 2005 Posts: 971 Location: "Mad as Hell !"
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: Re: Global Cooling
Vogelzang wrote:
One argument which the alarmists use to back their claims, is that data from boreholes in the Antarctic ice show that temperature and CO2 correlate very well. What they don't tell the public, however, is that correlation does not prove causation. And, in fact, the cause is precisely the opposite of what the alarmist would like you to belive. In the past couple of years, new and better analysis of the Antarctic ice data, giving a better time resolution, have shown that first temperature rises, and then carbon dioxide levels increase. It is the temperature increase which causes the increase in carbon dioxide and not the other way around. The extra CO2 could at most add a little extra warming to what is going on, but not even that is certain.
The correlation of CO2 and temperature works both ways. While CO2 can lag temperature increases, as they have in the past, it is also well understood, and in accordance to the GHG Theory, that temperature is also affected by increases or decreases of CO2. The claim still stands.
This is the old deniers argument #10 as listed on SkepticalScience.com. Good short reads for most of your denialisms. Got anything new?
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? _________________ The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
Yeah... the worthless 10-year old "Oregon Petition". I guess signatories like that of a PhD in literature or being a member of the Spice Girls is a real consensus buster. _________________ The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: Global Cooling
Vogelzang,
There is something called radiative transfer and thermodynamics. Get an education before spouting about things you obviously know nothing about. CO2 (and N2O, H2O, O3, NOx) is an infrared radiation absorber. So the more of it you have in the atmosphere the more re-radiation back to the surface of infrared emission that originates from the thermalization of mainly visible band radiation at the surface. This creates a new and higher equilibrium temperature. This is first principles physics and not statistics.
The only and I mean the ONLY process that has the potential to partly offset this warming effect of greenhouse gases is albedo from LOW altitude clouds. The problem is that there is no clear upward trend in low altitude cloud cover on this planet (we have NOAA and other weather satellite datasets back to the 70s). Instead you have an increasing humidity trend in the tropopause region and lowermost stratosphere, where it acts VERY effectively as an infrared reflector and does nothing to reduce the incoming visible band radiation.
The non-existent cloud albedo cure-all will not save us. The atmosphere will always be grey and never white. Even Venus with its total cloud cover and high albedo is still a furnace.
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Global Cooling
Of course in the above I am assuming that humanity will not be retarded enough to stage a continuous Pinatubo level of SO2 loading into the stratosphere to reflect the visible band radiation. I am only talking about the natural response to increased CO2 loading.
With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[48]
Scientific consensus
A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
* American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[21]
* US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[50]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[51]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[52]
* American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[53]
* Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.” [54]
_________________ Joe P. United Political Debate
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
Joined: Jan 25, 2006 Posts: 82 Location: Western Maine, USA
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: Re: Global Cooling
Lore wrote:
veliger wrote:
Because Poverty SUCKS worse than a little climate change.
All honest Climate Change mitigation purveyors admit the wealthy world’s standard of living must be reduced significantly to meet their atmospheric carbon goals. Unless someone comes up with a way to address climate change without reducing my standard of living, I'll take my chances on climate change. I'm 42; I'll be dead by the time the worst effects of climate change really start to cause significant problems for me here in Western Maine USA.
I refuse to live like someone in Spain or Portugal, never mind SE Asia or sub-Saharan Africa based on a computer model of the future. Especially a computer model of something as poorly understood as global climate.
As I said, Poverty Sucks worse than just about anything, other than being dead or in prison. Very few American are going to vote for a lower standard of living when they understand just how costly reducing carbon emissions will be.
This is your typical, I don't give a rat's ass about anyone else but myself attitude, that got us here in the first place. Your blinders are on and you ignore the truth for the very reasons you describe. I doub't many people in Spain or Portugal are in envy of your indulgent excesses at the expense of the rest of the world. Sorry, but your comfortable little life will be changing on a number of fronts.
It's not just a "little climate change" and its not a mild liquid fuel problem. While you may pass away before the worst of it, I'm sure your legacy to future generations will be much appreciated by them.
As David Green, professor of political science at Hofstra University, recently wrote...
Quote:
What they'll say is probably unprintable in any family newspaper, that's for sure. But in-between the expletives I think you'd be likely to find words like ... "unconscionable" ... "breathtakingly stupid" ... "astonishingly selfish" ... and, "If you weren't already dead I'd kill you!"
What percentage of Humans on earth do you estimate will be willing to voluntarily significantly reduce their standard of living based on computer models of future climate?
A political science professor from Hofstra? Now there's a guy with virtually no value added to society even today. If the GDP of the US declines by 10%, I think he's going to have to find another line of work since pseudoscience professors are certainly superfluous overhead we can't afford in a much poorer world.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
