Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 42 · Next
Author Message
Glenn savill
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 2598
Credit: 3,820,239
RAC: 23,116
Australia
Message 1360087 - Posted: 23 Apr 2013, 0:47:05 UTC - in response to Message 1360083.

approx. 350 ppm sometimes a little higher others a little lower like 320ppm -370 ppm
____________

Glenn savill
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 2598
Credit: 3,820,239
RAC: 23,116
Australia
Message 1360089 - Posted: 23 Apr 2013, 0:51:43 UTC - in response to Message 1360087.

I should put that is only in the last couple off mil yrs i'm not shore about the snowball era's tho
____________

Glenn savill
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 2598
Credit: 3,820,239
RAC: 23,116
Australia
Message 1360091 - Posted: 23 Apr 2013, 0:53:50 UTC - in response to Message 1360089.

plus I should also point out the methane I think was higher at the time of the snowball but don't quote me on that

____________

Glenn savill
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 2598
Credit: 3,820,239
RAC: 23,116
Australia
Message 1360093 - Posted: 23 Apr 2013, 0:56:38 UTC - in response to Message 1360091.

anyway guys by by for a day or two bionic is finished so time to get a bad headace and be stressed out
____________

Profile RottenMutt
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 01
Posts: 992
Credit: 207,654,737
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1360227 - Posted: 23 Apr 2013, 6:22:05 UTC - in response to Message 1359517.

so what is the physics behind global warming????

Copying my answer from the "positive" "solutions" thread:



1:
Our sun radiates light/heat energy at approximately 5000 K (5273 deg C).

2:
At that temperature wavelength (Sun), CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 'transparent' and so a large proportion of that energy reaches the earth's surface to heat the ground/water.

3:
The earth's surface of ground/water radiates heat energy at about 287 K (14 deg C).

4:
At that temperature wavelength (Earth), CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 'opaque' and so a proportion of that energy is absorbed to heat our atmosphere.

5:
Simplistically: To maintain a steady temperature on Earth, heat energy received from the sun must equal the heat energy re-radiated back out to space.

6:
We RELY on a certain level of CO2 to capture a proportion of re-radiated Earth surface heat to keep us comfortably warm. Otherwise, we would suffer something like the cold of Mars.

7:
Varying the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is one mechanism to directly change the proportion of re-radiated heat that is lost to space and so controls the temperature maintained.

...
Martin


Martin is the only one to state the physics, the rest of you alarmist are just stating the effect the government would like you to believe.
But in a nut shell the hotter the heat source the more heat proportionally the CO2 will absorb.
But CO2 is a trace element in our atmosphere, plant grab the carbon element thru photosynthesis to make sugar. I look at burning fossil fuels as recycling the carbon atom from being trapped in the earth, in other words, if all carbon was trapped in the middle of the earth we would cease to exist!

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8499
Credit: 4,194,256
RAC: 1,721
United Kingdom
Message 1360401 - Posted: 23 Apr 2013, 22:19:51 UTC - in response to Message 1359945.

Does appear from the graph ... Co2 seems destined to rise again to some degree perhaps to a 1000 or a little bit more or it may just steady out to around 500ppm.

How do you come by that 'conclusion'?

And how do you think our planet and ourselves will be affected?


All on our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8499
Credit: 4,194,256
RAC: 1,721
United Kingdom
Message 1360411 - Posted: 23 Apr 2013, 22:31:39 UTC - in response to Message 1360227.

... But in a nut shell the hotter the heat source the more heat proportionally the CO2 will absorb.

Indeed so. It is a finely tuned balance.

But CO2 is a trace element in our atmosphere, plant grab the carbon element thru photosynthesis ... I look at burning fossil fuels as recycling the carbon atom from being trapped in the earth, in other words, if all carbon was trapped in the middle of the earth we would cease to exist!

That effect may possibly set a lower limit on CO2 concentration to maintain healthy plant life. What is very interesting is that we appear to have reached a plateau of stability for a few million years that allowed human life to flourish.

We are now releasing thousands of years of trapped carbon as CO2 in just a mere very few years. That is one vast industrial deluge that is set to smash the last few millions of years of balanced CO2 concentration.

We can ever more accurately measure the accelerating change in our atmosphere, climate, and weather. Even the simplistic predictions of just a little more of all of those already seen examples is "not to the continued advantage of humanity".


All on our only one planet,
Martin


____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12745
Credit: 7,289,156
RAC: 18,003
United States
Message 1360705 - Posted: 24 Apr 2013, 16:27:09 UTC

How are humans going to become extinct?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22002530
Global warming didn't make the list ...

____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32104
Credit: 13,797,957
RAC: 25,014
United Kingdom
Message 1360708 - Posted: 24 Apr 2013, 16:32:00 UTC

Mankind is polluting the worlds atmosphere, that is completely undeniable, but whether there is global warming or whether that is contributing to it is not clear.



Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12745
Credit: 7,289,156
RAC: 18,003
United States
Message 1360788 - Posted: 24 Apr 2013, 18:46:53 UTC - in response to Message 1360708.

Mankind is polluting the worlds atmosphere, that is completely undeniable, but whether there is global warming or whether that is contributing to it is not clear.

Quite. No one denies pollution is bad. Or that it shouldn't be reduced.

Few will deny that there is a 100 year trend of warming either.

But if that trend is significant, is another matter. As we go back more than a few hundred years we run out of instrumented data. Then the climate scientists have to use averages. Averages smooth out year to year changes. As such we don't know how variable the short term is. When we look in the past and see they are giving figures of multi-thousand year averages, a 100 year trend is nothing.

Then there is the issue if we are responsible. Crystal ball is murky. But that hardly matters.

If we are, then we must accept that as the global population continues to grow exponentially, we will reach a point where we crash. No different than any population of animals running out of a food supply or some other resource. If we wish to prevent such, then we must prevent our population from growing exponentially. Are we ready to accept that?

If you could snap your fingers and every light incandescent light bulb was replaced by the most efficient LED bulb, if doesn't solve the problem. Eventually there will be enough more people that all those LED bulbs will use more power than the incandescent bulbs did. Global warming will begin again.

This the the issue with linear reductions is they don't work long term in the face of exponential growth. They may buy a couple years time but that is the best they can do. The debate needs to be over the root cause or it is all just more hot air.

Look at it this way. If this was a rocket ship traveling to a new planet it would be vitally important to keep the population in check. There would have to be an authority to have a baby. Resources would obviously be finite. Everyone would agree on this. Earth is just a big space ship.

The only conclusion that can be drawn when warmists refuse to engage on population control is they are either fools or don't actually believe in warming.

The debate is on ZPG and always has been. The question is are there already too many humans on spaceship earth.


____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32104
Credit: 13,797,957
RAC: 25,014
United Kingdom
Message 1360814 - Posted: 24 Apr 2013, 19:35:19 UTC

Good post Gary.

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1630
Credit: 575,274
RAC: 334
United States
Message 1360945 - Posted: 25 Apr 2013, 6:23:32 UTC

All the hot air generated here in this thread may be contributing to global warming, not to mention the electricity generated to run all these computers.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Glenn savill
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 2598
Credit: 3,820,239
RAC: 23,116
Australia
Message 1361215 - Posted: 26 Apr 2013, 0:03:49 UTC

Good point
Sort of makes the west's objections to China 1 child policy silly as we may all have that policy in a couple of deckades
____________

Profile RottenMutt
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 01
Posts: 992
Credit: 207,654,737
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1361250 - Posted: 26 Apr 2013, 2:50:06 UTC - in response to Message 1361215.

don't worry, the bird flu will thing the human ranks!!!
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12745
Credit: 7,289,156
RAC: 18,003
United States
Message 1363338 - Posted: 1 May 2013, 21:15:53 UTC

A few words of wisdom about "models"
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/05/01/author-of-the-physics-of-wall-street-ponders-strings-black-swans-and-a-final-theory-of-finance/

But there’s another issue that comes up in this question, concerning rigor. I think rigor is extremely important. But I don’t think that the difference between economics and nuclear physics comes down to rigor, at least not in the way I think you have in mind. If you read an economics textbook, you will see lots of mathematics, with axioms and theorems and fully rigorous proofs. You would never find that in a nuclear physics textbook. If anything economics is more rigorous than nuclear physics. But rigor isn’t what you need if you want to come up with useful solutions to the problems we care about. In fact, I think that some economists have been blinded by the rigor of their work: if the mathematics is right, the theories must be true. But the relationship between mathematical theories and the world is more complicated than that.

Horgan: Why are you so critical of Nassim “Black Swan” Taleb’s view of financial modeling?

Weatherall: I sometimes wonder if, at the end of the day, Taleb and I disagree about anything (other than how to express ourselves). He is absolutely right about the importance of black swans—events that are completely unforeseeable, and which change everything when they occur—and of so-called “fat-tailed” probability distributions, which help us account for the likelihood of extreme events. But I think the considerations he raises, many of which I also discuss in The Physics of Wall Street, should make us cautious and modest in our attempts to understand complex systems such as financial markets. I do not think they show that we should give up on mathematical modeling altogether. No model is perfect, but surely thinking about how black swans can affect us will help us make our modeling better—not because we can ever account for every unforeseen possibility, but because the recognition that there are unforeseen possibilities can guide us in how to build extra caution into our practices.

It isn't that the math is wrong, it isn't that the theory is wrong. It is the inputs aren't what you assume them to be.

That variable A in your math isn't A, but 1000*P - 0.001*Q + 0.0001*R^2 + 0.00003*S^T and most of the time A is near 1000 P because Q, R, S and T are near zero. But then the monkey wrench comes along and BAM. You need a new model. This is why all models are implicitly distrusted. Doesn't matter if it was Newton's theory of gravity or climate change.

As far as CO2 goes, we know what goes into the model. CO2 per person per year times lifespan raised to the power of population. This is the biggest factor by far. As it is exponential, we must concentrate on reducing the exponent as our first priority in lowering CO2. The secondary factors to reduce are lifespan and amount of CO2 per person. As this is exponential, unless the lifespan or CO2 per person is precisely zero eventually CO2 becomes infinite!

Are we willing to reduce population growth? If not, we are doomed. Are we willing to reduce lifespan? Doesn't seem likely given all the money funneled into medicine. Are we willing to reduce CO2 per person or level of industrialization? Doubtful.

Should we conserve where we can? Of course, but it doesn't solve the problem long term.

____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32104
Credit: 13,797,957
RAC: 25,014
United Kingdom
Message 1363340 - Posted: 1 May 2013, 21:20:05 UTC

Are we willing to reduce population growth? If not, we are doomed.

So the world should adopt China's approach? We all know that some people are breeding like flies, surely education is the answer?



Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12745
Credit: 7,289,156
RAC: 18,003
United States
Message 1363349 - Posted: 1 May 2013, 22:12:11 UTC - in response to Message 1363340.

Are we willing to reduce population growth? If not, we are doomed.

So the world should adopt China's approach? We all know that some people are breeding like flies, surely education is the answer?

Can the fate of the world rest on education and self restraint?

Consider how many smoke and how many are obese before answering.

____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32104
Credit: 13,797,957
RAC: 25,014
United Kingdom
Message 1363351 - Posted: 1 May 2013, 22:15:58 UTC

Can the fate of the world rest on education and self restraint?

Well, if it can't, we might as well all give up and not bother any more.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8499
Credit: 4,194,256
RAC: 1,721
United Kingdom
Message 1363359 - Posted: 1 May 2013, 22:37:36 UTC - in response to Message 1363349.
Last modified: 1 May 2013, 22:38:41 UTC

Are we willing to reduce population growth? If not, we are doomed.

So the world should adopt China's approach? We all know that some people are breeding like flies, surely education is the answer?

Can the fate of the world rest on education and self restraint?

Consider how many smoke and how many are obese before answering.

All by the fanatical unrestrained power of Marketing overwhelming the feeble pretence of school education...


Interestingly, the NHS here in the UK are running "good food" courses for those who have fallen victim to junk food Marketing and subsequent ill health due to bad diet and diabetes and... A common stingingly ringing feedback comment is:

WHY THE HELL WERE WE NEVER TAUGHT THIS IN SCHOOL ALL THOSE YEARS AGO!


Good diet is an awful lot more healthy and cheaper than repeated hospital visits.

All for the sake of some healthy education?

Also include healthy education for our planet? Tibet and Kerala had/have that right for a long time now...


All on our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12745
Credit: 7,289,156
RAC: 18,003
United States
Message 1363429 - Posted: 2 May 2013, 4:42:42 UTC - in response to Message 1363359.

All by the fanatical unrestrained power of Marketing overwhelming the feeble pretence of school education...

Oh the power you assign Madison Avenue. Perhaps you should look at something called a bell curve.

____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 42 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL

Copyright © 2014 University of California