Rabscuttle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2497
Registered: 09-10-2004
IP: Logged

A place for discussion! (as opposed to look-links)

---

[Last edited by Rabscuttle at 08-14-2007 07:09 AM]

Hikari
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 438
Registered: 01-28-2006
IP: Logged

I wish California's weather would go home and leave Oregon alone.

____________________________
Caravel Official Holds Progress:

golfrman
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 165
Registered: 07-10-2006
IP: Logged

Hey! We're perfectly happy not having it as hot as usual down here!

____________________________
Jesus is Lord and Messiah!

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1486
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

Alright... What I heard last concerning the climat issue was that when the UN should present it's global climat report there where three countries who wanted to soften the scientific results, and not change their life styles. One was China, one was India, and one was USA. It is beyond me how anyone can claim that the green house theory is just a part of the US propaganda machine, like DiMono seems to be doing in his article. From the outside it has for quite some time certanly looked like if the US propaganda machine is/has been buisy denying or softening the risks of global warming.

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Having seen some information on the dis-information campaign surrounding global warming, I'd have to agree with blondbeard.

Mattcrampy
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2388
Registered: 05-29-2003
IP: Logged

I wonder how NASA's climate figures being too warm really affects things. I have serious difficulty buying that the entire scientific community was blindly accepting NASA's figures as accurate without being able to compare them against their own. Constant cross-checking and asking of difficult questions is how science works, and being able to prove that NASA's figures are wrong - NASA, one of the world's pre-eminent scientific departments - is a huge coup, for pretty much anyone interested in the figures.

Especially seeing how hot-button the global warming issue has become, NASA's figures only coming to light now suggests that it's not just NASA's figures that suggest there's a climate change issue.

I also wonder: if DiMono's right about what percentage of CO2 is greenhouse gas, and I do not have the information to dispute those figures, where has all this CO2 come from? There's a lot more in the atmosphere now than there used to be, I mean a serious amount. There's an inconsistency here is all.

____________________________
What do you call an elephant at the North Pole?

DiMono
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1181
Registered: 09-13-2003
IP: Logged

Blondbeard wrote:
It is beyond me how anyone can claim that the green house theory is just a part of the US propaganda machine, like DiMono seems to be doing in his article.

At no time have I ever said the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. In fact, my article clearly states it does exist, as does my last post in the links thread. My argument is that the human contribution to greenhouse gasses is so minute that we shouldn't bother worrying about it. Yes we should reduce our pollution, but not out of concern for global climate change; we should do it because clean air is better than dirty air.

I would assume the other CO2 comes from air-breathing animals being alive. I've seen numbers as high as 0.28% for human CO2 contribution to overall greenhouse gasses, but that may be including exhaled CO2 from us being alive; it was unclear.

The Earth has been warming for 18,000 years. That has been caused by greenhouse gasses. In that time, the average temperature of the Earth has gone up by about 30C, from -15 to +15. Yes, it's been happening slightly faster recently. No, it's not our fault.

The greenhouse effect is a cumulative process. The longer it happens, the stronger it is. The sun's rays contribute to the oceans producing water vapour, which feeds in to the atmosphere and intensifies the sun's rays, thus contributing to more water vapour, and so forth. The same thing with the sun warming underwater CO2 deposits and releasing them in to the atmosphere. The Earth isn't getting warmer because we're spewing pollution in to the atmosphere, it's getting warmer because after 18,000 years there's enough greenhouse gas to speed up the process. It's a natural effect that started long before we had man-made pollution. Our contribution to that greenhouse gas is so miniscule as to be practically insignificant. This is happening beyond our control, because quite frankly the ecosystem is bigger than our influence.

I never said global warming isn't happening, I said we shouldn't care about it because it's happening on its own. My guess is it's going to continue for probably another 2000 years, and then the Earth will adjust itself and we'll see another ice age.

____________________________
Deploy the... I think it's a yellow button... it's usually flashing... it makes the engines go... WHOOSH!

silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

the correlation is strong - it's not proof of causation, but it does suggest that we should at least be interested in the fact that we're doubling the CO2 values seen in the last half-million years (even taking into account the cycles seen in the last half-million years)

and I'm not sure how we can just say "oh, something besides humans have doubled the natural cycle, but only in the last thousand years". seems too convenient a coincidence.

____________________________

DiMono
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1181
Registered: 09-13-2003
IP: Logged

You did notice the three spikes that look just like the current one that happened 140,000, 240,000 and 340,000 years ago, right? That means we're 40,000 years overdue for this global warming trend.

Also, that chart is highly misleading. If the information is correct, then there is an extra 80 parts per million of CO2 now compared with that of 325,000 years ago. It's gone up from 300 to 380; barely more than 25%, and that to 0.038% of total.

Notice also that the current temperature is absent from that chart. The temperature hasn't gone up nearly as dramatically as the CO2 has according to that chart. There are also other gasses conspicuously absent, such as methane and ozone.

Also, notice the downward trend that's present between 120,000 and 105,000 years ago, as well as 235,000 to 225,000: the temperature went down as CO2 remained roughly constant. Now look on either side of the 350,000 years ago line, and to the left of 150,000 years ago: the temperature remained constant as CO2 went sharply down. My favourite spot is about 70,000 years ago, when temperature started going up BEFORE CO2 did. Of even more interesting note to me is that 400,000 years ago, the separation between the CO2 line and the temperature line is quite dramatic. It isn't until 335,000 years ago that any kind of correlation can be drawn between them.

The conclusion this leads me to is that CO2 and temperature are both being influenced by some other factor, rather than one influencing the other. Something like: the sun warms the oceans, increasing the amount of water vapour, thus increasing the influence of the greenhouse effect. The extra heat from the trapped sunlight melts underwater or in-ground CO2 deposits, while at the same time warming the Earth's surface. I think that sounds more plausible than man-made CO2 (0.115% of greenhouse gasses, 0.038% of atmosphere according to that chart) being responsible for increased temperature all over the world.

I'm sorry, but your chart does nothing to persuade me.

____________________________
Deploy the... I think it's a yellow button... it's usually flashing... it makes the engines go... WHOOSH!

---

[Last edited by DiMono at 08-14-2007 05:15 PM]

golfrman
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 165
Registered: 07-10-2006
IP: Logged

DiMono wrote:
You did notice the three spikes that look just like the current one that happened 140,000, 240,000 and 340,000 years ago, right?

Also, that chart is highly misleading. If the information is correct, then there is an extra 80 parts per million of CO2 now compared with that of 325,000 years ago. It's gone up from 300 to 380; barely more than 25%, and that to 0.038% of total.

Notice also that the current temperature is absent from that chart. The temperature hasn't gone up nearly as dramatically as the CO2 has according to that chart. There are also other gasses conspicuously absent, such as methane and ozone.

Also, notice the downward trend that's present between 120,000 and 105,000 years ago, as well as 235,000 to 225,000: the temperature went down as CO2 remained roughly constant. Now look on either side of the 350,000 years ago line, and to the left of 150,000 years ago: the temperature remained constant as CO2 went sharply down. My favourite spot is about 70,000 years ago, when temperature started going up BEFORE CO2 did. Of even more interesting note to me is that 400,000 years ago, the separation between the CO2 line and the temperature line is quite dramatic. It isn't until 335,000 years ago that any kind of correlation can be drawn between them. The conclusion this leads me to is that CO2 and temperature are both being influenced by some other factor, rather than one influencing the other.

I'm sorry, but your chart does nothing to persuade me.

I completely agree, I had to take environmental science this year *most BORING CLASS EVER* and we had to watch the Al Gore movie, he kept saying oh, look the CO2 and temp go together, and the CO2 is going way up! But, he failed to mention the current temp. which really hasn't gone up more than it naturally does.

____________________________
Jesus is Lord and Messiah!

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5141
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Mattcrampy wrote:
I also wonder: if DiMono's right about what percentage of CO2 is greenhouse gas, and I do not have the information to dispute those figures, where has all this CO2 come from? There's a lot more in the atmosphere now than there used to be, I mean a serious amount. There's an inconsistency here is all.

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but I'll throw out a brainstorming idea anyway: reduction in the global amount of plantlife (i.e. forests) over the last X years would account for general increase in CO2?

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

DiMono
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1181
Registered: 09-13-2003
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:
Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but I'll throw out a brainstorming idea anyway: reduction in the global amount of plantlife (i.e. forests) over the last X years would account for general increase in CO2?

...it's amazing how the most obvious items are often the most overlooked. I believe you are correct. It could also account in part for the increased surface temperature in places where deforestation is taking place, because the trees aren't there to absorb the heat with their large, well distributed surface area, and instead the heat goes straight to the ground. It also readily satisfies my hypothesis that some other force is contributing to both CO2 and temperature change.

Nicely done.

____________________________
Deploy the... I think it's a yellow button... it's usually flashing... it makes the engines go... WHOOSH!

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1486
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

The thing is that acording to wikipedia CO2 is responsible for 12% of the total green house effect, in which case our actoins DO effect the total. (I think the effect from this would be around 0.4 C due to man made activities. Providing the scale is linear, which I don't know if it is). Espescially since we get an accelerated effect due to the ocean getting hotter, releasing water vapour. To me it seems as if DiMono pit one scientist against most of the scientists of the world. Sure, you can trust the one saying what you wants to hear, or maybe you do have some profound knowledge in this subject. I don't know, but what I do know is that a lot of very bright scientists have come up with this model, despite bieng pushed down by pretty strong political and economical interestes. I think that the chanse that they know what they talk about is pretty high.

And golfrman I'm sorry to hear that you find the information that this world might be going to **** boring. But it sounds as if you understood very little of the subject. Not even DiMono denies global warming. I might just say that it seems a bit... odd to think that the information that we might be destroying the planet shouldn't be handed out in schools (if that's what you think). It also seems a bit odd to not care about it. To just state that it's a boring subject. I know your young, but your still a part of this world, right?

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1486
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

DiMono wrote:

mrimer wrote:
Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but I'll throw out a brainstorming idea anyway: reduction in the global amount of plantlife (i.e. forests) over the last X years would account for general increase in CO2?

...it's amazing how the most obvious items are often the most overlooked. I believe you are correct. It could also account in part for the increased surface temperature in places where deforestation is taking place, because the trees aren't there to absorb the heat with their large, well distributed surface area, and instead the heat goes straight to the ground. It also readily satisfies my hypothesis that some other force is contributing to both CO2 and temperature change.

Nicely done.

Sigh! And who is cutting down forests at an alarming rate? Rainforests and such? It couldn't be man? Oh, no! Surely not!

DiMono
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1181
Registered: 09-13-2003
IP: Logged

Just because you don't see reports that say global warming is not man-made doesn't mean they don't exist. The scientific journals are not obligated to publish every paper sent their way; they pick and choose. If it is in the journal's best interest to not publish articles that say global warming isn't happening, or it isn't man-made, or that it's just a natural occurance, then they aren't going to publish those articles.

Also, there are other ways for trees to fall down than by cause of man. How many forest fires do we put out each year that are caused by lightning? What kind of effect would that have on the number of trees if we didn't put out those fires before they extinguished themselves? And more to the point, who was performing logging operations 140,000, 240,000 and 340,000 years ago? The argument that man is solely responsible for deforestation only holds if it is provable for the previous warming trends as well. Like anything else, it is a combination of factors that is leading to global deforestation. We probably stop more trees from being destroyed than we destroy ourselves, and that doesn't even count the trees we're planting to replace them.

____________________________
Deploy the... I think it's a yellow button... it's usually flashing... it makes the engines go... WHOOSH!

---

[Last edited by DiMono at 08-14-2007 06:23 PM]

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1486
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

Well... I do know that the rain forests are disapearing at an alarming rate due to humans chopping down the trees. The rain forets will be gone in a matter of decades if we continue as before.

I would think it's highly unlikely that humans stop more trees from being destroyed than what they destroy. Anyway... If that's what you believe you are highly inconsistent, since you said that you believed mrimer was corect. Now you say that you think that humans are actually making sure there are MORE trees around than there would be otherwise. That would actually lower the global temperature, acording to what you said in your previous post.

Sigh! I don't understand you. At all. I'm not trying to be rude, but are you truely believing in all that you say, DiMono?

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

DiMono - are you seriously denying deforestation? I can see why it's possible to debate the effects of deforestation, and to debate how much humans are contributing to climate change, but deforestation is a measurable fact, which as far as I know no agency in the world is denying, whatever their ideology. Do you have any evidence to what you're saying?

As for global climate change, I also somewhat fail to see your point. Even if humans have not contributed that much to it, I can't see why it's something we "shouldn't care" about - if the climate is changing in a way that makes the world less hospitable to us, shouldn't we be trying to change it in the other direction?

If you build a house near a volcano, and you know that the volcano is going to erupt, are you just going to sit in your house ignoring the upcoming threat because the eruption is in no-way your fault?

You can debate whether cutting gas emissions will help or not, but I can't see how you can debate that something needs to be done, assuming that the climate change is proceeding in the direction you seem to agree it is.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

DiMono
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1181
Registered: 09-13-2003
IP: Logged

When did I say there are more trees, or that I don't believe deforestation is taking place?

If we destroy 100 acres of rainforest each day (yes, I know the number's higher, this is an example), that's 36,500 acres we are destroying. Now suppose a further 20,000 acres are destroyed by fires caused by lightning, but the fires had a potential to destroy 100,000 acres if unchecked, but we stepped in and put the fires out. That's 80,000 acres we prevented from being destroyed, that would have burned if we weren't around. So 56,500 acres are destroyed, but 80,000 are not. That doesn't mean we're +23,500; we're still -56,500. But had we not put out the fires, we would have been -136,500 instead. So in that example our presence serves to slow the deforestation of the planet because we put out the fires. You may say this number is unrealistic. I counter by saying all numbers are unrealistic, because we have no way of knowing how many acres would have been destroyed if those fires weren't put out. Thus we have no way of knowing for certain the extent of our influence over CO2 consumption.

Now suppose we plant 100,000 acres of trees. You'd think we're at +43,500, right? Nope. The new saplings are in no way even close to being equal in CO2 processing ability to the old growth trees. The number of trees goes up, but the CO2 processing power of the world still goes down.

The volcano analogy is inaccurate because the volcano erupting is something that's going to happen. Global climate change is already happening, and there is no way to stop it from continuing. Further, it's happening with us or without us. A better analogy would be you've locked in your mortgage rate at 5% for the next five years, but mortgage rates just keep dropping over that time, costing you thousands of dollars against the amount you would have paid if you hadn't locked in. It's happening, and there's nothing you can do about it, so worrying about it is useless. So since it's something that's bigger than us and happening whether we want it to or not, why should we worry ourselves about it? Worrying about things you can't change is a quick way to unnecessary stress.

____________________________
Deploy the... I think it's a yellow button... it's usually flashing... it makes the engines go... WHOOSH!

---

[Last edited by DiMono at 08-14-2007 07:50 PM]

silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged

rain forest depletion is not the same as regular forest depletion -- forest fires in the northern hemispehere are part of a natural cycle which removes dead wood and are generally followed by renewed growth. rain forests get replaced with desert, because rain forests primarily exist where and because the soil sucks.



____________________________

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1486
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

Before humans begun cutting down forests there must obviously have been some kind of balance between fires and natural growth = no deforestation. If humans actually saves more trees than what they cut down, the natural balance would lead to an increase in the total number of fullgrown trees, since we would shift the natural cycle in a positive way for the trees.

If it's natural for 100 000 acres to get destroyed by fires (and storms and whatever) every year, that wouldn't lead to deforestation, since if that were the case the forests of earth wouldn't be the size they are. They would naturally be so small that the number of trees destroyed every year matches the natural reproduction.

Now then: If humans start to save more trees than they destroy that would lead to an increase in the total number of trees. It would lead to a shift in the natural balance. This would obviously lead to more full grown trees out there in the forests. Not deforestation.

DiMono
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1181
Registered: 09-13-2003
IP: Logged

Good argument.

The difference is in the ground. Forest fires are essential for the health of the forest. They remove dead and rotting wood and undergrowth, thin out crowded areas, and the strong healthy trees tend to survive. Because forest fires burn so hot and so fast, they generally only go about half an inch in to the soil. The trees can come back.

Like silver said, the soil where deforestation happens is significantly worse. The machines tear up the poor-quality, loose, and thin earth right along with the trees. My boss used to work with reforestation projects, and he said he was not unusual for 90% of seedlings to be awash in the river within a week because there wasn't enough dirt to hold them in place.

That means the trees we save by putting out the fires are not equal to the trees we take down by deforestation. The ones we save actually prevent new trees from growing, while the ones we take down prevent any trees from growing at all. Even if the numbers are the way I said they might be (I used "probably" in error earlier, it was the wrong word), the harm could be greater than the good.

The harm of deforestation is obvious, but the net effect of our efforts to stop forest fires is unclear and incalculable. I'm not sure it's a discussion worth pursuing, because other than deforestation hurting, we don't know anything about the other. I just argued in two posts that stopping forest fires is both good AND bad. I think that discussion will get us nowhere, and we should move on.

____________________________
Deploy the... I think it's a yellow button... it's usually flashing... it makes the engines go... WHOOSH!

Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged

Let's look at it this way.

For twenty years, we've been like, 'Look, stop frigging polluting and recycle, you dumb bastards, because breathing smog is BAD.' There were many cartoon shorts in the early to mid 90s on this matter.

It hasn't worked.

All of a sudden, people are like, 'Well, er, it could cause the world to end.' People are finally listening. As long as global warming risks the world being destroyed, we're actually going to see progress made on more environmentally friendly practices.

And you academic types are trying to ruin that just for the sake of being right?

Frickin idiots.

BDR
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 106
Registered: 10-03-2006
IP: Logged

IMO, that's going a bit in the 1984 direction; people are too stupid to understand how to do things reasonably, so we should lie to them so they actually do reasonable things out of fear?

Not that this won't *work*, but ideally we should be focusing on improving the knowledge of the populace instead of telling them things that sound smart but that are actually based in shaky evidence/methods; this is sounding like the kind of rationalization you might see an evangelist using in defense of the fire and brimstone edition of Christianity. (I know I'm going to take some flak for that...)

My take on the weather issues is this: We should be doing something about it regardless of whether there is any *immediate* danger. We certainly are having a significant impact on the world, and we need to fix that so it's positive and not negative. But people *aren't* terribly reasonable creatures, and that makes it difficult for them to grasp all the ways it's possible to do that and still achieve their desires (or in extreme cases revise their desires so that this can be done), which is sad. I don't think that people should be intentionally lied to or in any way deceived even so; for one thing, any slips will lead to the credibility of the science and scientists being wrecked for a while, and for another suggesting that we are better off being lied to and doing the right thing rather than having the truth but doing the wrong or stupid thing makes it sound as if:

1. The people are too stupid to do the right thing on their own (probably true), and

2. That while they are too stupid to do the right thing on their own, they are somehow smart enough to come up with the right thing to do and actually manage to do it given the impetus to do it (not sure I buy this).

Also suggests that the ends in this case justify the means, which is rather dubious in my opinion.

aztcg7
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 104
Registered: 03-08-2005
IP: Logged

It's not that people are stupid. I was reading an article that I can't find right now (read: I might be making the whole thing up) about the fact that there is a large consortium of corporations that would be adversely affected should people come to believe that global warming was true, caused by humans, and that it could be seriously harmful to the environment. It talks about how some large paper came out about how global warming was incontrovertible, and this consortium was offering scientists $10,000 to write articles denying or undercutting parts of this document.

When people aren't experts on a subject, they naturally turn to the experts in order to figure out what's going on. Now, if there is dissent among experts, even if there is the appearance of dissent, then non-experts are more likely to be skeptical about what experts say. This means that this consortium can just make it appear that some scientists aren't sure, and therefore, we can try to force our views on the world. It's sort of like when those 5 or 6 scientists talked about how evolution has the possibility of being incorrect, and therefore, we must teach "Intelligent Design" to the little impressionable children.

All in all, it seems like that's the same thing happening here.

Disclaimer: I am a treehugger, without all that tree hugging (bark hurts!)

EDIT: Scientific American, August 2007, pgs. 64-73 talk about climatologists who think global warming is real and being affected by humans. And the article I refer to above is the cover story of Newsweek for August 13, 2007, pgs. 20-29.

____________________________
In other news, is a considerably more stylish way to express sarcasm than , because everybody uses and I am /indie/. INDIE, I TELL YOU.

---

[Last edited by aztcg7 at 08-15-2007 07:38 AM]

DiMono
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1181
Registered: 09-13-2003
IP: Logged

I can't speak for anyone else, but my claims are these:

1) Global warming is happening. It started most recently 18,000 years ago, and is a natural occurance.
2) It is not our fault. Having started 18,000 years ago that would be a doubtful conclusion in and of itself, but if the chart shown earlier is correct, CO2 values are at 0.038% of the atmosphere of the planet. Yes it's more than ever before, but according to Auer humans are only responsible for 3.2% of that. We couldn't affect the global climate if we wanted to.
3) Based on the same chart, since there are periods where CO2 goes down or remains constant while temperature goes up, and periods where temperature goes down while CO2 goes up or remains constant, and since, most notably in my opinion, the last two warming trends 70,000 years and 20,000 years ago began before CO2 levels started to rise, I believe that rather than one causing the other, they are both being caused by some third factor that has not been identified or quantified yet. If that is correct, then dealing with CO2 emissions is treating the symptom, not the disease.
4) We should still be cutting our pollution emissions anyway, because breathing polluted air sucks a whole lot more than breathing clean air. Smog sucks.

I am fully in favour of cleaning up the air we breathe, I just don't think global climate change should be used to scare us in to doing it.

Also, re: theory of evolution: of course it has the possibility of being incorrect. That's why it's called a theory and not a theorem.

____________________________
Deploy the... I think it's a yellow button... it's usually flashing... it makes the engines go... WHOOSH!

---

[Last edited by DiMono at 08-15-2007 01:55 PM]

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1486
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

1) Well... Yes, but we have had a quite rapid increase in temperature in the last 100 years or so. Why does glaciers and the arctic ice, which has been there for hundreds (if not thousands) of years starting to melt away right now? All over the world? Coincidence? I find it rather unlikely, but sure... It is possible.

2) That feels like a quite silly argument. It doesn't matter how much CO2 there are in the atmosphere. What matters is it's effect. It's like with ozone, were you have around 0.0004% in the atmosphere. We do NOT want that ozone to go away, since it has a very crucial effect. And how does Auger account for the increase in CO2 by 12% during the last 60 years? As I see it such a rapid increase ought to depend on human activity. An increase above levels which has ever been seen! (At least in a very, very long time.

3) That might be right, but on the other hand there are lots of bright people with expert knowledge in the subject (which I doubt that you have) who claims that CO2 could very well be a factor which starts a sequence of events which ought to increase the global mean temperature by several degrees! Of course we should investigate the question further, since it's of so crucial importance, but in the meantime we bloody well ought to be doing something about our rapid burning of coal, oil and gas. For several reasons, where the possibility of a severe threat to the whole planet is one of them.

4) Finally we agree

Maurog
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1501
Registered: 09-16-2004
IP: Logged

I laugh at weasel words like "severe threat to the whole planet". The planet isn't going anywhere.

Worst case scenario - all rain forests are destroyed, pollution levels rise, ozone layer disappears, icebergs melt, some countries get flooded.

Big deal... the survivors will adapt, this way or another. Once the consequences start being deadly, resources will be thrown at science to produce a solution. And it will.

No worriez.

____________________________
Slay the living! Raise the dead!
Paint the sky in crimson red!

DiMono
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1181
Registered: 09-13-2003
IP: Logged

1) That's why the faulty NASA data is part of my argument: the temperature may not be going up as rapidly as people think it is. That's why, given NASA's inaccurate data, I think it's important to re-evaluate everyone else's data for errors as well. I don't want to throw anything away, I just want it audited. Also, there are glaciers getting thicker in various places too.

Also, the rate of temperature increase is going up because the greenhouse effect is cumulative. I believe I've already posted the logic behind that statement in this thread, so I will not repeat it.

2) "As I see it such a rapid increase ought to depend on human activity." That statement is no less speculation than any of my theories are. The fact is the world is a complex system, and I believe we are giving ourselves too much credit regarding how severe an impact we can have on it. The global warming argument we are constantly bombarded with doesn't say "human activity," though, it specifically talks about pollution and CO2 emissions. Here are some other CO2 sources that are often conveniently ignored:

- Increased animal population
- Deforestation and destruction of plantlife (less CO2 processing power)
- Melting underwater and underground CO2 deposits
- Human overpopulation
- Occasional volcanic eruptions - yes they are infrequent, but each one contributes significantly more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than we could ever dream of doing ourselves

3) "...there are lots of bright people with expert knowledge in the subject (which I doubt that you have)" - I'll thank you to keep your comments to the argument and not engage in ad hominem attacks. Just because I don't have degrees in the field doesn't necessarily mean my theories are any less valid. If my theories are going to fall apart, it will happen by disproving their basis, not by attacking my credibility. This is not the first time you have made such attacks against me, and I've let them slide up to now, but I am seriously getting tired of them. Continuing...

"...CO2 could very well be a factor..." Could be, yes. It's another theory that is opposite in opinion to mine. My claim is that there are enough discontinuities in the relationship presented in that chart, specifically the points where CO2 is going down while temperature is going up, to form an argument that CO2 is not a cause of temperature change, or at least not the main cause as is currently being advertised.

"Of course we should investigate the question further..." I have absolutely no disagreement with the rest of your post.

____________________________
Deploy the... I think it's a yellow button... it's usually flashing... it makes the engines go... WHOOSH!

---

[Last edited by DiMono at 08-15-2007 03:34 PM]

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

DiMono wrote:
3) "...there are lots of bright people with expert knowledge in the subject (which I doubt that you have)" - I'll thank you to keep your comments to the argument and not engage in ad hominem attacks. Just because I don't have degrees in the field doesn't necessarily mean my theories are any less valid.

Sure it does. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're invalid, but it does substantially decrease the chance of their being right, since it increases the chance that you lack knowledge necessary to interpret the facts. Since I also lack such knowledge, I'm more likely to trust authority. Which means actual experts, not the media (and not Al Gore, for that matter).

If my theories are going to fall apart, it will happen by disproving their basis, not by attacking my credibility.

True.

This is not the first time you have made such attacks against me, and I've let them slide up to now, but I am seriously getting tired of them.

Then you shouldn't get involved in this sort of debate. Seriously, if you want to argue about science, you better be willing to show your credentials - either your own education or clear sources for your opinions - or put up with people dismissing your views.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1486
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

I'm sorry if you think I'm attacking you on a personal level. I don't have an expert knowledge in this subject. I don't think anyone in this forum has. It wasn't meant as an attack of any kind.

Still... How do the arctic ice and the glaciers melt if it isn't due to an increase in temperature? I don't understand how you think here.

And lastely: If CO2 could be a factor of a rapid global warming, why should we not care about it then? (refering to the titel of your first link) To me it feels very, very stupid to ignore such a a risk.

And Maurog: If a large part of the spiecies is going to die, if a rapid increase in temperature should wipe out entire eco systems (like the corral reefs), how could that not be a big deal? Of course the planet will not die, but this might be a severe threat against many, many lifeforms on the planet. I don't know how severe, and I don't think you do either. And I don't have your (religous) faith in science.

---

[Last edited by Blondbeard at 08-15-2007 04:01 PM]