Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 89
Global warming + CO2. explain this thenPage 3 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
@ Erasersedge
The earth is a dynamic, highly interconnected web of life. The keyword there is dynamic. It changes.
We can either adapt to the changes, or spend massive effort (probably ultimately futile) trying to "freeze frame" it the way it is.
I'm all for sustainability (in fact deeply so) and I'm sure we must have had some small influence on the climate. That said, our efforts should be put to not polluting our planet and "putting back" wherever we can, what we take from earth through biodegradability and replanting, etc. What can't be put back (like oil) should be used minimally, extracting every bit of possible use through recycling.

We might be injecting too much CO2 into the atmosphere for a sustainable balance; we might not. I do know that deforestation HAS to have changed the climate and is probably responsible for much of the "surplus" CO2. It seems only logical then, that the most inexpensive and practical way of alleviating some of the problem lies in the planting of trees, as was suggested earlier.

The recent hyping of anthropic global warming (a questionable hypothesis) as some sort of emergency that will require drastic action such as global taxation through the UN, carbon credits to be bought & sold as securities and heaven knows what else, by an unelected governing body of globalist businessmen fairly wreaks of a con (for those who hate the word "conspiracy). It's one that I have never bought and one that was recently shown to exist. My advice is to always look for the money. It's always hiding behind the curtain, like a mugger waiting to pounce on his next victim.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 94
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/3/2010 10:01:47 AM
Yup, BT, Chris Horner. A lawyer. Not a climatologist. Or a naturalist.

What he doesn't state is that a past increase in polar bear populations was due to the stopping of the hunting of bears. However, the threat comes from the loss of sea ice, which has been recorded.

As for the rest of it, well, I can say "cooling Earth" proponents have been putting thermometers in their freezers. Doesn't mean a damn thing.
 ChrisPCritter
Joined: 7/8/2009
Msg: 97
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/4/2010 2:54:22 AM

The sun has a surface temperature of around 6,000 'C yet none of this radiates to earth,only light ? Is that what you're saying.I find that hard to believe


Heat, like sound, requires a medium through which to travel. So the sun's temperature could be a billion degrees, and if the light reaching Earth remained the same as it is now, we would be no hotter. The problem is in the conversion of light to radiant heat, which gets trapped in our atmosphere--the medium that also normally allows transmission of Earth's excess heat into space. But since CO2 absorbs heat, rising levels of this and other greenhouse gases are rapidly creating a "sauna effect" on a global scale, with much of the additional heat being stored in the waters of our oceans. Think of the vast amount of energy it takes to raise a planet's temperature by a couple degrees C in a hundred years. Trust me, it's beyond your imagination.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 98
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/4/2010 6:50:32 AM

Heat, like sound, requires a medium through which to travel. So the sun's temperature could be a billion degrees, and if the light reaching Earth remained the same as it is now, we would be no hotter.


Wow! that's not just 'wrong' that's amazingly wrong!

Heat is light. Open up a science book! Please! So the warmth I feel on my face on a sunny day is just...what? Illusion?

Oy!
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 101
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/6/2010 5:43:07 PM


The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well.


Global warming implies higher amounts of precipitation implies thicker ice. If the Arctic ice cap is thinning then the global warming hypothesis is in trouble.
 luckyhot777s
Joined: 12/26/2008
Msg: 103
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/7/2010 3:11:36 AM
Responce #3 had the right answer....

But op I've got to ask you this.....Al Gore....is that you?

ROTF.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 105
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/9/2010 7:22:19 AM


Sufficed to say, if global warming does kill us, the earth will live on and repair itself.


CO2 levels have been as much as 25 times their current concentration in the past. The Earth somehow managed to survive without becoming a new Venus. Global Warming is a tempest in a teapot.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/9/2010 11:57:53 AM
and my beach house might turn out to be a bad investment.

3 to 9 ft increase in ocean levels?
that displaces a few hundred million pepe's, or is it more?

not from ice melt hardly at all, from thermal expansion of the ocean, yes?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 110
view profile
History
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/10/2010 12:41:13 AM
. In the random card game of planet formation, the Earth was dealt an aquarian straight flush, cashing in with Homo sapiens.

---End of quote.

how about a trillion straight flushes in a row. [more like 10 to the umpteen]

or, and, that's where the idea of a big number of other universes comes from.
has to be.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 111
view profile
History
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/10/2010 7:26:48 AM

I do find it relatively interesting that people say "global warming and C02 is destroying/harming the planet!" when in actualy fact, its not harming the planet one bit, the earth won't die. No no, the only thing this whole thing is going to harm is us, the homosapiens etc. Sufficed to say, if global warming does kill us, the earth will live on and repair itself.


Wanna run that logic past us one more time? If the planet is not being harmed one bit, why would the earth repair itself? And just who has said that we're destroying the planet? We're destroying ecosystems and our own potential for a sustainable future, but I'm pretty sure no matter what there will still be a rock formerly know as 'Earth' orbiting the sun long after we're gone.



CO2 levels have been as much as 25 times their current concentration in the past. The Earth somehow managed to survive without becoming a new Venus. Global Warming is a tempest in a teapot.


Sure CO2 levels have been that high, but not since mammals, much less humans, inhabited the earth. Current CO2 levels are the highest in human history, and still climbing. Not to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you feel humans too are but a tempest in a teapot?

dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 114
view profile
History
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/10/2010 3:04:41 PM
Let me try to clear this up. I do cite a couple of Wiki references, which I know are not universally accepted, but there's only so much research time I had to put in to this response.

The last time CO2 levels were as high as today was at least 15 million years ago

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

CO2 levels of 6000 ppm, the highest I've seen referenced until reading the Count's claims, existed between 400 and 500 million years ago, depending on whose analysis you accept.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Humans first branched off from chimps 5-7 million years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

The first mammals appeared in the neighborhood of 200 million years ago

http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html

So.... to recap, the Count said:



CO2 levels have been as much as 25 times their current concentration in the past. The Earth somehow managed to survive without becoming a new Venus.


and I replied:


Sure CO2 levels have been that high, but not since mammals, much less humans, inhabited the earth. Current CO2 levels are the highest in human history, and still climbing.


I couldn't find, but perhaps the Count or someone else could provide, documentation that CO2 concentrations had ever been 25 times their current level (24x380=9500), but do certainly concede the 6000 ppm figure. As I said, though, that was before mammals existed on the planet, AND never since humans showed up have we seen concentrations as high as we see today.

So I did err in accepting the Count's math, but I was working from memory and knew there was a period when CO2 was much more concentrated than today, which I think was his main point.

I think the confusion lay in misinterpreting my statement to imply that CO2 had never been this high since mammals showed up. That's not what I said. I did say and stand behind that humans are living in higher CO2 concentrations than they ever have. Other mammals have seen higher, but not in a very long time, and those super high levels predate even them.

Dave
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 117
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/11/2010 12:42:10 AM

we in some ways will have to back up our so called ‘progress’ when it comes to the more environmental damaging processes.

You do realize I'm in total agreement with you that we have to start living sustainably and many popular industries are going to have to either clean up or shut down. That said, I don't think global government (global tyranny really), and global taxation & trading in carbon credits is necessarily the solution we should be looking at.

It strikes me as the equivalent of a street merchant selling a few buckets of water for millions of dollars to the city of Chicago, in case Mrs. O'Leary's cow comes back to town. If the city councillors had any brains, they might want to consider that they could be getting ripped off and that the money might be better spent on a fire department.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/11/2010 1:02:19 AM
yor on

It looks to me like the conditions for a balanced running earth are so minutely arranged, that we are seeing the results of something before we can really even prove the cause of it.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 119
view profile
History
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/11/2010 6:48:43 AM


I really don't think that you and I are that far apart on what we feel needs to be done. I guess I'm just a little more cautious about being too alarmist and triggering some dumb responses which may do more harm than good.


It seems we indeed are not that far apart.

Although I often find myself dragged down into the weeds debating the finer points of climate science, my primary point has always been that we need to focus our attention on how best to minimize negative impacts from a warming climate, not waste our time arguing whether it's worth taking any action at all.

I'm not a huge fan of cap and trade. It is a proven technique when done properly, but can be a boondoggle if it isn't done right. I'd prefer a straight carbon tax, no loopholes, with proceeds from that tax used to offset negative economic impacts among fossil fuel dependent workers and communities. There may well be other good ideas on how to reduce our carbon footprints. I'd love to have that discussion.

But every time such a discussion gets started, almost immediately someone starts spouting standard denialist talking points questioning decades of climate science research and before you know it policy discussions get set aside while we argue whether we should even have a policy at all.

I suppose that's the point. There are those bound and determined to defend the status quo, and delay tactics serve their purposes nicely. I wish I knew how to get past those tactics.

The silly thing is that not one of us here, so far as I know, is a climate scientist. Some here have varying degrees of science training, but if anyone here has published a peer reviewed piece related to climate change they've been quiet about it.

So what we're left with is someone making a statement on the issue, someone who disagrees asserting as much, and soon we get into a pissing contest between people with no personal credentials to support their positions (myself included). Anyone can pull talking points off a blog or website they support. And while I like to think my rebuttals are sound, it's not like I've actually done any independent research. I haven't analyzed ice core samples. I haven't constructed models. All I do is research credible sources of information from those who do.

What I have done is environmental policy work. I've represented my state in various policy forums, including briefings from national science and policy experts. I hesitate to call myself a policy expert, although there may be some who would, but I do have a firm grasp of how policy is developed on the state and national level. Like anything else, sometimes it's done well, sometimes not.

Good policy comes from careful analysis of the science and the policy alternatives. On the science side, it means learning what mainstream science tells us as well as whatever alternative perspectives are out there, and evaluating the relative merits of those alternative perspectives. Policy alternatives should be assessed based on their potential to achieve clear goals with minimal harm.

Back to our most recent discussion - the argument that the planet has experienced greater temperature or atmospheric carbon extremes gets trotted out pretty regularly. All I try to do is put that in context. When I point out that CO2 levels are the highest in human history, it's not because I think those are toxic levels for us to inhale, but to emphasize that current conditions are unprecedented since our species first emerged, and that alone, to me, justifies a hard look at what we ought to do about it.

I've rambled on enough.

Dave
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 120
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/11/2010 6:58:19 AM
I believe we have to lose the wording of global warming. It gives one the impression that temps are on the rise. Not the issue really. Climate change is more apt.

We do affect the balance of climate whether it through razing of land for agriculture, expanding cities etc. it causes minute individual changes but like the concept of butterfly wings wings - it adds up.
I think the biggest thing holding the general public back from full understanding is their personal perception and immediate surroundings do not give them the impression that much is wrong or out of whack.

How do you get that message out when media isn't used for that purpose?
Take the recent superbowl commercial fiasco. The stink rose over the airing of an anti abortion ad was a gutsy move by CBS. Sure they were paid 2.5 million dollars but it wasn't the type of thing people are exposed to during such such an event.

I don't know what they show kids in school but IMO geography classes should be about the changes that man has made to the planet. They are our only shot at exposing a great amount of info to a relatively captive audience. Most likely would be met with much resistance but it is obvious that pictures of vast agro areas void of any eco system is something that most would watch on their new flat screens, especially when they would prefer entertainment like the last season of lost or two beating each other to a pulp in a cage.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 121
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/11/2010 7:00:34 AM
[pquote]may well be other good ideas on how to reduce our carbon footprints.
Why just our carbon footprints? Why not try to reduce our overall environmental footprint as much as possible? Why not do our best to extract only so much non-renewable resources as we might need by necessity (for our survival)?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 122
view profile
History
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/11/2010 7:12:40 AM

Why just our carbon footprints? Why not try to reduce our overall environmental footprint as much as possible?


I'll see you and raise you one...

Not only should we strive to minimize our negative environmental impacts on all fronts, but we should also work to maximize our environmental benefits as well. As the most cognitive species on the planet, in my view we have an obligation to utilize those cognitive skills to the benefit of all, not just people.

Dave
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 124
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/11/2010 7:28:09 AM

n my view we have an obligation to utilize those cognitive skills to the benefit of all, not just people.

I'm with you 100% on that one.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 125
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/11/2010 7:36:01 AM

From the research i've been doing...it would appear that our whole galaxy is passing through a denser part of the universe, every planet in our solar system is heating up, not just our planet! NASA knows this.


Oh please do cite a source. Either that, or this is just a variant on the "sun is heating up all the planets" BS.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 128
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/11/2010 10:13:08 AM


Oh please do cite a source. Either that, or this is just a variant on the "sun is heating up all the planets" BS.


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html

Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA.


And that's fine. that speaks to the question of solar irradiance.

However, I was referring to this particular quote:


it would appear that our whole galaxy is passing through a denser part of the universe, every planet in our solar system is heating up, not just our planet! NASA knows this.


Which is definitely news to me. I would love to see where that came from.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 129
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/11/2010 10:43:29 AM

carbo footprint eh? isn't everything made of carbon to a certain degree?


Anything living, derived from living creatures and some rocks, yes.

However, that's not what the term refers to.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/11/2010 12:33:50 PM
people are starving.
many live in abject poverty.
many are just poor, but surviving.
many are the working poor.
many are doing just OK.
then there are those who make enough but,
live from paycheck to paycheck.
some make lots, but still live from paycheck to paycheck.

non of the above are going to volunteer to pay more taxes for something that big business actually caused, albeit to satisfy our materialistic out of control cravings.

this totally randomly put together ball of atoms is getting a little finicky is it.
or just for life as we know it.

and if it`s nature doing it, good luck changing that, I think someone above implied.
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 134
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/12/2010 7:03:26 AM
This is what is scary. John Stewart pointed it out the other night.
Big snowstorm and right away the media is crawling all over Al Gore and the whole global warming hysteria (as they named it ). This is the major force that needs to be dealt with and until we can come to some cohesive admittance that this is in fact happening we are in trouble.
It is examples like this that waste so much time and delay any solid action we could make.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 135
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/12/2010 7:21:40 AM
@ Yor-on

<div class="quote">I also think that we need to put a stop to overpopulating, and there, ah, well, enough said about that :) (That's mostly a 'religious problem' I think? Not that much about 'common sense'?)
Frankly. it is probably too late to prevent global famine & the major resource wars, which may easily become nuclear exchanges wiping out about 95% of life on earth and possibly all higher mammalian life, probably within the next 20 or 30 years. Billions & billions of people, probably including us (if we're still here) and (certainly) our children are going to die horribly in what might be a possible extinction event.

Many countries are already (voluntarily or not) reducing their populations. These would include Canada & the US (whose increase is by immigration, not by the actual births exceeding deaths), and Russia and even China (by a draconian program of birth control) and probably would include the Scandanavian countries. In point of fact, there are enough resources to support an even larger global population, but the "haves" won't go without their excessive consumerist demand for resources and the "have nots" will not simply sit & die quietly & horribly to make the haves happy.

If we don't get together (and SOON - as in right now) as a globally united people that cares about its fellow man and diligently works to hielp him out to the point of personal sacrife that most don't seem to want to make, we are finished as a species. If we can't get together and unite behind the cause of our own survival, we bloody well deserve our extinction too!
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 136
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/12/2010 8:27:18 AM
I am of the opinion that somehow the have's are hoping that the have nots perish before they have to sacrifice anything.
It is truly incredible what a human will do when faced with starvation.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >