Okay... Time for a serious answring of your latest posts.
quote:
________________________________________
Blondbeard wrote:
Yes, I know you want to stop pollution. But: I highly doubt that USA (or a lot of other countrys) will stop pollution if there is no "better" reason than "pollution sucks".
________________________________________
That's because most people are lazy, which is an entirely different problem.
Yep. Lazynes is a problem, but it's related to this. As long as people thinks that it's very important to stop pollution they might accept "
uncomfortable"
changes of their lifestyle in order to stop pollutions. The fear of human caused global warming might be the motivation we need. Also there actually is a risk that humans are affecting the planets temperature with their pollutions. I think that risk is pretty high. The point is, however that youy work against yourself when you write things which will make people less keen on stopping pollution.
quote:
________________________________________
In what way am I being misleading? Those 30 degrees is not the result of 18 000 years of global warming. That is wrong. If that was the case earth would have been totally covered with ice back then (kind of). We have had quite a strong greenhouse effect for a very lonb time.
________________________________________
You're contradicting yourself. First you say it hasn't been going on that long, then you say it's been going on for a long time. Be consistent please. Further, your own CO2/temperature graph conclusively proves me right. The temperature has been going up almost steadily for almost 20,000 years. In that time, the change has been 30C.
As you know by now you were totally wrong here. The only thing you actually proved is that you can't read these two graphs correctly. I never said that the greenhouse effect hasn't been measurable for a long, long time (hundreds of thousands of years). BUT this last century we have had a
rapid increase in temperature which is too odd to be likely to be natural (look at where 2004 is in the graph). That is in my opinion a human influence on the climate, starting with the industrial age.
quote:
________________________________________
This doesn't really matter, though (the 1/600th degree per year is in my opinion another irrelevant information).
________________________________________
No, it's arguably the most relevant piece. Saying the temperature has gone up 30C is shocking, but when you find out it's taken 18,000 years to do it, and the temperature has only gone up that miniscule amount each year, it put things more in perspective.
Again you are wrong in what you say about 30 degrees. BUT even if you were right about that you would still be thinking... odd. If you have something which is slowly, slowly going up as a result of a certain substance over 18 000 years, and you then add a whole lot more of that substance in an instant you would obviously see a very rapid increase in that which is dependent of the substance. That is what has been happening according to the theory of man influenced global warming.
Now, then. If you have something which depends on a certain substence, which is constant during 18 000 years, and you add a whole lot more of the substance in an instant the result will be the same. A very rapid increase in that which is dependent of the substance.
Thus I find what you said odd and irrelevant. During the latest century the temperature has certanly gone up by a lot more than 1/600th degre per year (which is a nonsense figure, since it's based on an asumption that is wrong, but it's the figure you used).
quote:
________________________________________
What matters is that it's the green house gasses which causes the green house effect. And if we change the atmospheric gas levels enough that is going to effect the green house effect.
________________________________________
There are two problems with this statement. The first is that we can't change it enough to influence anything. The second is that even supposing we could, and we somehow managed to put a stop to global warming, the inevitable outcome is a period of massive global cooling, which would then put us in very serious danger of another ice age coming faster than it normally would. I don't know about you, but I prefer the heat.
This is so much nonsense. The CO2 level have (acording to theory) indeed changed enough during the last century to be able to affect the global temperature, even if we use a linear scale. Yet you say it as if you spoke an absolute truth. It kind of irritates me.
The second part is just odd. It's also an example of "
un-clean"
argumetntation. You try to link me to a coming ice age.
If we put an end to man influenced raising of the CO2 levels that would by no means lead to a global cooling. If that was the case we wouldn't have a rapid global warming now, but rather a global equilibrium (or a slow global warming, or a slow global cooling). Another ice age will come, eventually, of course. And if we see the signs of one we might want to do something about it. Might, since that might be a very dangerous thing to do.
quote:
________________________________________
You say that each volcano eruption contributes significantly more greenhouse gasses than we could ever dream of doing ourselves. Firstly: Is this true? It seems very unlikely.
________________________________________
USGS report on volcanoes - one eruption = 2,000 tons of Sulphur Dioxide per day
2004 when St. Helens erupted - 250 tons of Sulphur Dioxide a day for months on end
As I thought: It is NOT true. This is from your own source:
"
Compared to man-made sources, though, volcanoes' contribution to climate change is minuscule, Gerlach said.
Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.
Nothstein, of the state energy office, says the Centralia coal plant puts out about 28,000 tons a day. Statewide, automobiles, industries, and residential and business heating systems emit nearly 10 times that amount."
In other words: What you said about volcanos contributing more greenhouse gasses than man could ever dream of ("
- 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"
) was plainly false.
quote:
________________________________________
Secondly: It's irrelevant.
________________________________________
You say yes, I say no. Opinion isn't debatable.
Let's debate it then. I say it's irrelevant because volcanos are part of the natural ways CO2 is added to the atmosphere, and those we need. If no CO2 were added to the atmosphere in a equilibrium like way (yes, I know that there are fluctuations, but they tend to be very slow, or at least not so violent.) earth would cool down and become an ice planet. The problems starts when we humans disturb the natural equilibrium.
quote:
________________________________________
And thirdly: all of the rest of the CO2 sources you list are probably due to human activities. In which case humans DO cause the majority of the rise of atmospheric CO2.
________________________________________
But human influence isn't the question here; pollution is. Whether we are responsible for increased livestock or deforestation is what's irrelevant, because it's not being discussed. The only thing people are worried about is CO2 pollution from things like cars and factories.
You, sir are now inconsistant. First you say that we shouldn't care about global warming. Now you say that we shouldn't care about arguments which might force you to care about global warming. If you think that humans actually DO influence the global climate I sugest that you go to your article and give it some major updates where you firmly state that you believe humans are affecting the climate, and what you think should be done about the problem (if you think it's a problem). I think you will find that most who are worried about pollutions are also worried about e.g. deforestation.
quote:
________________________________________
If this is true, and we are concerned about CO2 it seems to me that one of the best thing we can do is to become vegitarians.
* Rainforests and forests are cut down so that animals can be "produced" there.
* Rainforests are cut down in order to grow soy and vegitables to feed all the animals we "produce"
* Animals themselves contribute to the CO2 levels.
________________________________________
... Everything except the last line is patently incorrect. Rainforests are not cut down so animals can be produced there, they're cut down for lumber. Rainforest destruction is a problem because other types of plantlife can't grow there, therefore it's impossible for them to be cut down to grow soy and vegetables. In fact, if we stop eating animals, they will reproduce and create more animals. That means more CO2 production. If we're only eating plants, that means less CO2 processing power since they're being devoured. That means if we care about CO2 levels the worst thing we can do is become vegetarians.
This makes me angry, beacuse once again you take on the role as an expert without knowing anything about the subject. You sound quite ignorant at least.
It's kind of scary that you do this sometimes. The soil of the rainforests are NOT imideatly teleported away once the forest is gone. It will erode away with time due to rains and winds, but for a short time you can actually farm in the soil which will soon be gone.
I'm not making this up!
This is also in agreement whith what I learned in school. And please do your own search on the subjet too, if you want.
And then we come to the interesting part! Where you say that being a vegitarian is bad for the CO2 levels. This is such an outragous lie that it kind of shocks me. Once agian you don't seem to have grasped the idea of equilibrium. Without human influence a lot of animals would be gone in a few decades. The meat production is quite big, you know. And, as if that wasn't enough, we consume a lot of energy to produce our meat. It takes about ten times as much energy to produce meat than what it takes to produce crops. Energy which often comes from fossil fuels. Also: deforestation actually DO seem to happen because of meat production, right?
________________________________________
That beeing said I don't believe in Augers numbers. Or he might be missleading. 3.2% sounds impossibly low, and if that was the case I think it ought to be quite common knowledge among serious scientists.
________________________________________
You, however, are not a serious scientist, and thus have no way of knowing whether this number is common knowledge among scientists and just being kept from us. Neither do I. However, just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it is any less likely to be correct.
I, however, am at least kind of a scientist, as I've already stated. It is irrelevant, but I don't know why you come up with this half lie. Seems rather pointless. What makes Augers statements less likely to be correct (apart from them being seemingly absurd) is that most of the serious scientists don't believe what he believes.
________________________________________
AND! If some un-educated, lazy person who doesn't want to believe in the green house effect happens to read your article I think the main impression it will leave is: "Cool! The global temperature rise isn't that important after all, and even if it was it isn't caused by humans. There was just some scientists screwing up."
________________________________________
You mean my article is going to have the desired effect? What a catastrophe! I never mention scientists screwing up though, just reinterpreting the facts.
That's another thing which just doesn't seem very true. You made quite a big deal out of saying that NASA screwed up when they measured the temperature.
quote:
________________________________________
The probable result if this opinion (which actually IS mileading) becomes widespread is that we will not stop to pollute the environment. After all: People have a hard time caring even when they think that the fate of earth is dependant on action.
________________________________________
Your statement is self-defeating. If people have a hard time caring anyway, then my article has no effect. If people do care anyway, my article only serves to reinforce that caring because at the bottom I clearly say that we must reduce pollution, just not because of global warming.
My statement is (IMO) in no way self-defeating. Your article is likely to make people care less about pollutions. If you can't understand that I will be truely amazed.
A lazy person who doesn't want to believe in the greenhouse effect will probably not care very much about you saying "
pollution sucks!"
He/she will probably just absorb the "
fact"
that we shouldn't care about global warming and continue polluting.
quote:
________________________________________
Meh! I've got to go now (to a work intervieu). I'll read the other replys more carefully later.
________________________________________
Yes! Please read everyone's replies carefully and think about them critically. It's all I've ever asked.
Once again you are inconsistant. On many levels. Firstly you have said that personal attacks aren't cool. And secondly I do think critically about what people writes. You, however, seems to think that you shouldn't have to think at all to understand what I'm saying. Just look at what you say in the next post:
quote:
Blondbeard wrote:
You don't even try to understand me, do you?
It shouldn't take any effort to understand you. Talk more clearly. I am.
As you can plainly see I don't think you are talking very clearly. I think you are sometimes misleading and inconsistant. And you sometimes claim things which just isn't true.
[Last edited by Blondbeard at 08-25-2007 10:34 AM]
.
is a considerably more stylish way to express sarcasm than 
, because everybody uses 
