TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- For the global warming deniers
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

for the alarmists...



>link<

Looks like an exponential function. Not good.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Looks like an exponential function. Not good.

it's a flawed model thats why. but don't tell the IPCC that. you'll lose your funding, be labeled a heretic and forced to wear a scarlett letter.

Why doesn't anybody ever mention the positives of so-called global warming? Maybe it's not an irreversible trend, maybe it's more of a step function...or maybe it's all cyclical within larger more generational secular and even longer Kondratieff Cycles.

^ I know! They should tie-off some of the giant chunk of ice that just broke in the antarctic and tugboat it over to Africa to use for irrigation or something!

Just kidding. I'm on the fence regarding whether global warming is actually man made or not. I think it's probably accelerated by our presence but to what degree I don't think we'll ever be able to know for sure.

I'm more concerned about obvious pollution (like the water supply in China for example)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Why doesn't anybody ever mention the positives of so-called global warming?

Oh, I totally agree. I think global warming is a beacon of hope for a better future. Even in the worst-case scenario it will merely impose some much-needed selective pressure on the human species, and over the long term it's hard to imagine how the environment as a whole would suffer considering that warmer climates are generally more hospitable to life.

The claim that the return of carbon to the atmosphere from whence it came will have disastrous consequences is really an extraordinary claim. But I suppose it may depend upon what one considers 'disastrous.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...l-warming-fraud

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvx...feature=related

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx...2/sunspots.html

http://astrophysics.suite101.com/ar...um_variable_sun







The suns effects climate change more significantly than c02 emissions could ever hope to

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Oh, I totally agree. I think global warming is a beacon of hope for a better future. Even in the worst-case scenario it will merely impose some much-needed selective pressure on the human species, and over the long term it's hard to imagine how the environment as a whole would suffer considering that warmer climates are generally more hospitable to life. The claim that the return of carbon to the atmosphere from whence it came will have disastrous consequences is really an extraordinary claim. But I suppose it may depend upon what one considers 'disastrous.'

If global warming shortens the snowboarding/skiing season it is absolutely disatrous!!

But seriously--I've also read that a warming trend should have favorable ramifications longer term for agricultural growing conditions which should facilitate larger crop yields to feed the ever growing population of planet Errfff.

Don't worry... the trees will save us!


"Trees are growing faster and could buy time to halt global warming"
"Plants and trees are growing faster because of rising carbon dioxide levels, potentially buying Earth more time to address global warming, according to scientists."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...al-warming.html

quote:

Originally posted by D-res The suns effects climate change more significantly than c02 emissions could ever hope to

you're a climate scientist are you? lol.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you're a climate scientist are you? lol.

That'd be fun, but I'm just regurgitating what I've learned myself. Variations in sunspots and solar activity is the primary cause for changes in climate. Man's contribution to CO2 output is very small. I encourage you to check out the links I provided. There's a plethora of information out there.

why, so i can play 'creationist' with climatology? no thanks.

i think there's a reason we research the sciences and i see no point in pretending that i can understand climate change better than those experts currently in the field.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Even in the worst-case scenario it will merely impose some much-needed selective pressure on the human species, and over the long term it's hard to imagine how the environment as a whole would suffer considering that warmer climates are generally more hospitable to life.

but it will be those least able to deal with the changes that will suffer the most. sure, things like droughts and famine could reduce over-population in places like africa, but is that a reasonable outcome because decades of americans wanted to use their electric toothbrushes?

by "long term" im assuming you mean "really fucking long term"?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The claim that the return of carbon to the atmosphere from whence it came will have disastrous consequences is really an extraordinary claim.

dont you think weird and 'wonderful' things are possible when you change something in a universe that generally exists as a balance of different forces?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter But I suppose it may depend upon what one considers 'disastrous.'

dude, my mind boggles at what it would take for you to label something 'disastrous'

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton

What are you suggesting here? That correlation = causation? That there appear to be huge super-cycles? Sorry, just a bit confused.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka What are you suggesting here? That correlation = causation? That there appear to be huge super-cycles? Sorry, just a bit confused.

My question is, where does the additional carbon dioxide come from, before the industrial revolution? And does higher carbon dioxide levels precede higher temperatures or do higher temperatures precede carbon dioxide levels? It does seem to be that higher carbon dioxide levels equates to higher temperatures.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton My question is, where does the additional carbon dioxide come from, before the industrial revolution? And does higher carbon dioxide levels precede higher temperatures or do higher temperatures precede carbon dioxide levels? It does seem to be that higher carbon dioxide levels equates to higher temperatures.

Maybe earlier levels came from planetary events like asteroids or something. More recently, could it come from 6 billion people simply breathing 24/7? That and about a billion other things...

The last part of your answer speaks to my question about correspondence =/causality. A graph can say a lot of things --not necessarily true all the time either. Without a lot of further supporting data, it would also seem perfectly rational that both CO2 levels an temperatures are responding to some other exogenous stimuli. Or possibly there are a couple of specific causes of increasing CO2 levels(like rainforest destruction or the industrialization of China for instance, or even something out of our world like increasing sun spots (as if I understand that!)) while other issues that we are worrying excessively and losing sleep about are really not significant variables and we should not be so concerned with them.

My point is just that, sure a first look at the graph might cause a person to jump to certain conclusions, but can we really make that jump confidently based on the graph when there is too much room underneath to speculate at the cause of the output.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but it will be those least able to deal with the changes that will suffer the most. sure, things like droughts and famine could reduce over-population in places like africa, but is that a reasonable outcome because decades of americans wanted to use their electric toothbrushes?

Maybe a reduction in over-population is exactly what they need? Of course, that's not much consolation for those who are 'reduced,' but that's the reality of a universe that exists as a balance of different forces...

In any case, I consider it an acceptable risk. We don't know with much specificity what kind of region-specific climate change will occur if global warming continues. Some regions will gain immediate benefits while others will suffer immediate detriments. I tend to think that the net effect will be positive considering the amount of presently frozen and inhospitable land in Asia and North America, but obviously some people will suffer an undeserved detriment. There's nothing unusual about that in nature, though. Moreover, at this point it's probably more practical to respond to these sorts of humanitarian issues on a case-by-case basis than to avert global warming. Such an approach would have the additional benefit of allowing us to reap the beneficial effects of global warming.

quote:

by "long term" im assuming you mean "really fucking long term"?

Yeah.

quote:

dont you think weird and 'wonderful' things are possible when you change something in a universe that generally exists as a balance of different forces?

Sure, it's possible. But I don't think that returning CO2 to the atmosphere is a very dramatic change. Sure, it's bigger than, say, damming a river or building a sea wall to impede the natural process of erosion, but it also seems considerably less significant that purely natural changes that occur from time to time, like a major impact event or the eruption of a supervolcano.

What I object to about the modern environmental movement is its unrelenting preference for the maintenance of the status quo. But the reality is that nature doesn't sit idly by in one big, endless, equilibrium. Shit hits the fan sometimes. Big, sudden changes occur. Species struggle to survive. Some fail. I think that volatility and the uncertainty that comes with it is something to be embraced, not feared.

If we were doing something that had a plausible of producing an environment unsuited to life, then I might be more hesitant. But merely reverting our atmosphere to a prior state, however apruptly, does not seem to me to fit that bill. We already know that an atmosphere with that much CO2 supports life because it already has! And in fact, there is considerable reason to believe that it does a better job of supporting life than our current atmosphere, since all life which uses photosynthesis directly benefits from an atmosphere richer in CO2, and almost all other life lives directly or indirectly off of of those organisms.

Sure, it will disrupt current ecosystems, but it will lay the groundwork for potentially even more prosperous ecosystems as species inevitably adapt to the changes.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton My question is, where does the additional carbon dioxide come from, before the industrial revolution?

Farts. Seriously, you do know that animals passing gas does contribute to the CO2 levels.... i just added a few tons after I ate that Big Beef Burrito from Taco Hell.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN why, so i can play 'creationist' with climatology? no thanks. i think there's a reason we research the sciences and i see no point in pretending that i can understand climate change better than those experts currently in the field.

The links I gave you ARE to experts currently in the field. Understandably you're tuned out the fact that there is a whole slew of scientists on the OTHER side of this 'debate' with reasonable proof to suggest otherwise, because Al Gore stole the climate change spotlight. You and I may not be in a position to debate with these people but we can certainly objectively look at what they have to say and develop our own rational opinion. Al Gore, for the record, is in no more a position to make such assertions than we are, if you don't feel learning things for yourself is comparable to college courses. Feel free to take a look at his own academic history in this area.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Maybe earlier levels came from planetary events like asteroids or something. More recently, could it come from 6 billion people simply breathing 24/7? That and about a billion other things... The last part of your answer speaks to my question about correspondence =/causality. A graph can say a lot of things --not necessarily true all the time either. Without a lot of further supporting data, it would also seem perfectly rational that both CO2 levels an temperatures are responding to some other exogenous stimuli. Or possibly there are a couple of specific causes of increasing CO2 levels(like rainforest destruction or the industrialization of China for instance, or even something out of our world like increasing sun spots (as if I understand that!)) while other issues that we are worrying excessively and losing sleep about are really not significant variables and we should not be so concerned with them. My point is just that, sure a first look at the graph might cause a person to jump to certain conclusions, but can we really make that jump confidently based on the graph when there is too much room underneath to speculate at the cause of the output.

Well, this is my take. Perhaps volcanic eruptions or something to that effect, caused CO2 levels to rise dramatically. Plants were able to grow more because of the higher CO2 levels and warming trend. Then the climate returned back to equilibrium because the extra plants were absorbing the extra CO2, so CO2 levels come back down along with temperature. But what's happening today is not natural. We are spewing a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, while at the same time, destroying huge amounts of plant life. How will equilibrium occur when the absorbtion of CO2 by plants is curtailed. The oceans also take on so much CO2 before going too far acidic.

One this is for sure. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more of it does mean a hotter atmosphere, whether that CO2 lead to the higher temperature increase or not, it ultimately will, if it gets to a certain level.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res The links I gave you ARE to experts currently in the field. Understandably you're tuned out the fact that there is a whole slew of scientists on the OTHER side of this 'debate' with reasonable proof to suggest otherwise, because Al Gore stole the climate change spotlight. You and I may not be in a position to debate with these people but we can certainly objectively look at what they have to say and develop our own rational opinion. Al Gore, for the record, is in no more a position to make such assertions than we are, if you don't feel learning things for yourself is comparable to college courses. Feel free to take a look at his own academic history in this area.

your "whole slew" are the minority opinion, so what makes you listen to them over the majority, given you lack the credentials to make a distinction between the two? why are we even talking about al gore? i couldn't give a shit about what he has to say.

quote:

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[66] Despite this, statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes. wiki

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Maybe a reduction in over-population is exactly what they need? Of course, that's not much consolation for those who are 'reduced,' but that's the reality of a universe that exists as a balance of different forces...

So, you're saying it is acceptable for the rich nations to continue to upset the balance of the planet because it will create an impetus for change by those not responsible for the warming of the planet? I hesitate to use the word "fair", but its not is it? the africans are forced to die because they've bred too much for the environment, but you and I aren't forced to stop using our cars willy-nilly? Not very equitable.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter In any case, I consider it an acceptable risk. We don't know with much specificity what kind of region-specific climate change will occur if global warming continues. Some regions will gain immediate benefits while others will suffer immediate detriments. I tend to think that the net effect will be positive considering the amount of presently frozen and inhospitable land in Asia and North America, but obviously some people will suffer an undeserved detriment. There's nothing unusual about that in nature, though. Moreover, at this point it's probably more practical to respond to these sorts of humanitarian issues on a case-by-case basis than to avert global warming. Such an approach would have the additional benefit of allowing us to reap the beneficial effects of global warming.

i dunno man, im not sure any of us will be around by the time global warming starts making a positive contribution.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Sure, it's possible. But I don't think that returning CO2 to the atmosphere is a very dramatic change. Sure, it's bigger than, say, damming a river or building a sea wall to impede the natural process of erosion, but it also seems considerably less significant that purely natural changes that occur from time to time, like a major impact event or the eruption of a supervolcano.

so why do all the climate experts disagree with you then?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter What I object to about the modern environmental movement is its unrelenting preference for the maintenance of the status quo. But the reality is that nature doesn't sit idly by in one big, endless, equilibrium. Shit hits the fan sometimes. Big, sudden changes occur. Species struggle to survive. Some fail. I think that volatility and the uncertainty that comes with it is something to be embraced, not feared.

fair enough, but i dont consider a species failing due to our influence specifically is the same as the natural progression of evolution. we will be giving plenty of species exactly zero time to adapt to the new arrangements we caused. that doesn't bother you at all?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter If we were doing something that had a plausible of producing an environment unsuited to life, then I might be more hesitant. But merely reverting our atmosphere to a prior state, however apruptly, does not seem to me to fit that bill. We already know that an atmosphere with that much CO2 supports life because it already has! And in fact, there is considerable reason to believe that it does a better job of supporting life than our current atmosphere, since all life which uses photosynthesis directly benefits from an atmosphere richer in CO2, and almost all other life lives directly or indirectly off of of those organisms.

But you're talking about previous cycles; which are natural and reach some kind of equilibrium im sure. We're screwing with that balance, and im not sure we can be so blas� about the effects it will have on the planet due to the rapidity of the changes.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Sure, it will disrupt current ecosystems, but it will lay the groundwork for potentially even more prosperous ecosystems as species inevitably adapt to the changes.

so we're doing the planet a good turn? haha. im not sure all the species destined to become extinct through unnatural selection would share your opinion. im also not sure that its logical to focus on the far-off supposed benefits (that nobody currently alive will bear witness to) when the negatives are here with us right now.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN your "whole slew" are the minority opinion, so what makes you listen to them over the majority, given you lack the credentials to make a distinction between the two? why are we even talking about al gore? i couldn't give a shit about what he has to say.

31,000 is a pretty strong minority. 31,000 obviously just representing the scientists who signed the petition to reject the Kyoto protocol. Here's an article explaining this position:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_a...rticle_HTML.php


I'll summarize. Temperature variations don't accurately match increasing CO2 levels but match variations in solar activity almost to a tee. Increases in CO2 may have a small warming effect, but the primary cause is the sun. In addition the south pole ice shelf is larger than it ever has been and is continuing to get larger. The earth goes through CYCLES, warming and cooling. We're are well within the medieval maximum and the maunder minimum, two of many documented extended periods of earthly warming and cooling periods over the last several hundred years.

In addition the taxation that will occur because of emissions regulations will be disastrous to poor nations.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res 31,000 is a pretty strong minority. 31,000 obviously just representing the scientists who signed the petition to reject the Kyoto protocol. Here's an article explaining this position: http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_a...rticle_HTML.php

31,000 you say? looking at the page a total of 27,675 have virtually no relevance at all to climate science.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res I'll summarize. Temperature variations don't accurately match increasing CO2 levels but match variations in solar activity almost to a tee. Increases in CO2 may have a small warming effect, but the primary cause is the sun. In addition the south pole ice shelf is larger than it ever has been and is continuing to get larger. The earth goes through CYCLES, warming and cooling. We're are well within the medieval maximum and the maunder minimum, two of many documented extended periods of earthly warming and cooling periods over the last several hundred years. In addition the taxation that will occur because of emissions regulations will be disastrous to poor nations.

i know the argument. and i also know its a minority opinion. sure, it may well be right, but as it stands i see no reason to dismiss the research done by institutions all over the world in favour of an petition signed by anyone that managed to get a 3 year degree in science.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.