PDA

View Full Version : Answer Me This



jack grebe
12-29-2006, 07:24 PM
On Global Warming. I know this was kicked about a million times but I have yet to get the answer to my satisfaction.
Where/what is the link between GW and man as the cause?
I have no doubt things are heating up, and I believe the idea that this is happening faster than ever before....but the science community jumps right into "caused by man" without a positive link that I have seen.
Where is the smoking gun ?

rbgarr
12-29-2006, 07:31 PM
Help us narrow down the responses please.

What reputable research have you read that has NOT satisfied you.

ljb5
12-29-2006, 07:31 PM
The "smoking gun" is the greenhouse effect.

To put it simply, burning stuff as fuel produces CO2 and H20 (carbon dioxide and water, along with some other stuff.)

CO2 and H20 absorb, transmit and reflect light just a little bit differently than the other gases in the atmosphere.

This causes the atmosphere to absorb just a little more light energy (heat) than it used to.... and this heat builds up and warms the planet.

We can go into more detail if you like.

ljb5
12-29-2006, 07:38 PM
To answer the question about how we know it's caused by humans:

First, we know what type of fuel humans use. Humans use wood, coal, oil and natural gas. It's very easy to examine these materials and find out that they're made out of carbon. We know what happens to carbon when it burns -- it becomes carbon dioxide.

Also, we can look at historical records of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and we can see that the amount of carbon dioxide went up when humans started using a lot of fuel.

That's the link between humans and CO2.

Also, we can measure how CO2 affects the absorption of heat. If you take a glass jar full of nitrogen and oxygen (the normal composition of the atmosphere), you can shine a light into it and measure how much of that energy is absorbed.

Then, if you do the same thing with CO2, you can measure that a different amount of energy is absorbed.

That's the link between CO2 and higher temperatures.

jack grebe
12-29-2006, 07:39 PM
The "smoking gun" is the greenhouse effect.

To put it simply, burning stuff as fuel produces CO2 and H20 (carbon dioxide and water, along with some other stuff.)

CO2 and H20 absorb, transmit and reflect light just a little bit differently than the other gases in the atmosphere.

This causes the atmosphere to absorb just a little more light energy (heat) than it used to.... and this heat builds up and warms the planet.

We can go into more detail if you like.that I understand....however where is it proven that what man has put up there is the cause? He may contribute to some small extent, but so did things like large forrest fires that are no longer allowed to burn unchecked.

Meerkat
12-29-2006, 07:40 PM
I was just pondering that "global warming" is really going to look like "global instability," thus the snowfalls in Denver and the record rain in Seattle. The geological record says that the weather patterns of the last 2,000+ years have been unusually stable compared to what is recorded in the ancient snows of the polls and other sources.

Meerkat
12-29-2006, 07:41 PM
Ahem - carbon is not burned, it is liberated. It's more accurate to say that when carbon containing materials are burnt that carbon is liberated in the form of CO2.

I would not want to be around any fire capable of actually burning carbon. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Ron Williamson
12-29-2006, 07:49 PM
???????
Carbon is burned ALL THE TIME.
Oxidizing(burning or rotting,reacting with oxygen) carbon makes CO2.
R

ljb5
12-29-2006, 07:52 PM
that I understand....however where is it proven that what man has put up there is the cause? He may contribute to some small extent, but so did things like large forrest fires that are no longer allowed to burn unchecked.

Well, first of all, you're right that there are lots and lots of other effects. The earth is a very large test tube and there are a lot of things going on at the same time.

Nobody is pretending that absolutely all of it is caused by just one type of activity. It's possible (although there is no evidence for this) that some of the effect is due to stuff way outside of our control (sunspots, solar magnetic storms, meteorite collisions, OJ Simpson, aliens, etc....)

That being said, whatever else may have done something, we done what we did -- and for that much at least, we are responsible.

To look at it from a more scientific perspective, there is a very strong correlation between certain human activities and conditions of the atmosphere.

Specifically, the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere corresponds to the amount of oil we have pumped out of the ground and burned.

Somebody is pumping 84,000,000 barrels of oil per day out of the ground and setting it on fire. I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure that was done by humans.

Somebody is buring about 12,000,000,000,000 pounds of coal per year. Again, I suspect the humans.


Also, there are other effects, such as the loss of rain forest. That's mostly getting cut down by humans. The beavers are partly to blame, but not mostly.

Meerkat
12-29-2006, 07:54 PM
???????
Carbon is burned ALL THE TIME.
Oxidizing(burning or rotting,reacting with oxygen) carbon makes CO2.
RChemically speaking, carbon is not burnt. It does not break down into a simpler substance, after all, it's an element. Burning carbon containing substances does change the way it's bound though... ;)

I assure you that, although theoretically possible, it's quite difficult to ignite a chunk of pure carbon.

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-29-2006, 07:55 PM
OK, I'm probably going out on a limb here, but I say "so what?"

Let's say that we bomb the atmosphere with too much CO2, and we deplete the ozone layer (ozone is pretty nasty stuff by the way), and the planet heats up and the historical ice shelfs melt and break away and the fresh water content of the oceans rises and disrupts the flow of the Gulf Stream and the Earth experiences unprecidented (in our times) climate shifts.... I say, "so what?"

The planet has experienced the same sorts of shifts for one reason or another for countless millenia... maybe the previous cause was dinosaurs farting, who knows? Were they wrong for farting?

But the fact is that the Earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles before, and as sure as it is a hell of a bitch for people who may own property and who may want, ney, may expect a certain climate to remain constant in their little privately owned world, YOU CAN'T FOOL MOTHER NATURE! (meaning, you're out of luck if El Nino makes LA a bitch of a place to live)

Grow up. If it is not one parasite, it is another that will screw with the ecologie. The best Buddhist is the one that is happy surfing whatever wave rolls into the set.

Me, personally, I'm thinking that the Canadian North Coast might be a good place to invest in property!

;-)

Nicholas Carey
12-29-2006, 08:03 PM
that I understand....however where is it proven that what man has put up there is the cause? He may contribute to some small extent, but so did things like large forrest fires that are no longer allowed to burn unchecked.Forest fires are "current account" carbon. The "current account" carbon cycle is fairly short-lived: plants consume CO2 and generate oxygen. The C on the CO2 goes into the plan'ts infrastructure. When they die/burn/rot/decompose/ the carbon winds up back in the atmosphere pretty quickly -- termites, for instance, the largest biomass on the planet, generate a lot of carbon gases as they consume plant matter. Ditto for cattle.

What's jacked up the CO2 level in the atmosphere is our releasing of a large part of the past several billion or hundreds of million years of accumulated savings in the "carbon bank" in the form of "fossil fuels": coal, petroleum, etc. It has taken us less than 2 centuries to release into the wild carbon accumulations that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate. There is no way of putting this carbon back into the long-term carbon store save that of time.

Current atmospheric CO2 levels at 380ppm are nearly 30% higher than at any time over the last 650,000 years -- this data obtained from antartic/greenland ice cores -- analysis of gas content of bubbles trapped in the ice. The most recent additions to this database were obtained in 2005, drilling for ice cores in Antarctica. EPICA (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica) "drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time" to obtain ice cores for analysis.

This rise in CO2 level has occurred only since the advent of the industrial revolution -- prior to that time, humans used for all intents and purposes only current carbon cycle fuels (and there weren't that many of us).

If you plot CO2 levels, using data from this sort of research, over time, the atmospheric CO2 level remains fairly constant over time, allowing for ice ages. Not until the start of the industrial revolution at the end of the 18th century does it start rising and, even then farily slowly. Atmospheric CO2 levels increase pretty much in parallel with our consumption of fossil fuels.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var.jpg

That's the smoking gun.

ljb5
12-29-2006, 08:04 PM
The planet has experienced the same sorts of shifts for one reason or another for countless millenia... maybe the previous cause was dinosaurs farting, who knows? Were they wrong for farting?

I dunno... maybe you should go find a dinosaur and ask him....

...oh, wait.... they're all dead!

In the end, Mother Nature will survive. She's one tough mother. We are much more delicate.

jack grebe
12-29-2006, 08:11 PM
couldn't this also be caused in part by deforrestation? Time line seems about right.

ljb5
12-29-2006, 08:18 PM
couldn't this also be caused in part by deforrestation? Time line seems about right.

Yes, deforestation is one of the contributing factors.

Probably not the most significant factor.

Nicholas Carey
12-29-2006, 08:22 PM
couldn't this also be caused in part by deforrestation? Time line seems about right.Nope. The carbon in the trees is still in the current carbon account. The net increase in free carbon comes from the release of the carbon stored in petroleum, coal, natural gas, etc.

And cutting down the trees hasn't helped. It's certainly an influence: the Amazon rain forest, for instance, is an absolutely huge carbon sink, storing carbon and releasing oxygen. And that's getting flattened at quite a good clip...about 10 acres per minute.

But even if deforestation was the cause...it's still people that cut down all the trees.

ljb5
12-29-2006, 08:26 PM
Do you actually know that the numbers are factual, especially when the numbers come from people getting large grants to research, grants that they themselves write to continue their capitalist venture each year.

So now you got something against capitalism?

Why do you hate America so much? :D

It's amazing (pathetic, really) that conservatives are soooo willing to believe that scientists and researchers are totally corrupted by money ---- yet they absolutely refuse to believe that anyone on their side of the fence might be corrupted.

All those scientists working for the oil companies and the tobacco industry are totally above reproach, right? And if Halliburton says we need to go to war in Iraq, that has nothing to do with how many billions of dollars they're going to make from it, right?

Sorry, Mlke, if you're going to try to refute actual research, you're going to have to come up with something better than that.

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-29-2006, 08:39 PM
I dunno... maybe you should go find a dinosaur and ask him....

...oh, wait.... they're all dead!

In the end, Mother Nature will survive. She's one tough mother. We are much more delicate.

Well, that's my point. The bias here is that things ought to be how we want them to be... we want the Sunny Southern California Coast to be rain free, we want New York (I don't know... I don't want this) to have several months of snow... basically, we want the status quo... but, my point was that it is the organism that is most adaptable that will survive. So, we can either complain about how things are, or, we can adapt... I opt for the latter.

Nicholas Carey
12-29-2006, 08:50 PM
...we can either complain about how things are, or, we can adapt... I opt for the latter.Or we can do something to remedy/alleviate the problem, rather than continuing to sh*t where we sleep, so to speak.

We've only got one blue marble to play with: why [continue to] screw it up?

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/2429/globe_east_540.jpg (http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/)

huisjen
12-29-2006, 08:52 PM
I'm stalled about half way through Tim Flannery's new book, The Weather Makers, but it has some very interesting points:

1) the mideval warm period was europe only. It did not exist as a global effect and is inconsequential in discussions of global warming.

2) The point where theoretical climate diverges from observed history is about at the point where southeast asians began rice culture. Paddies produce a bit of methane and may be responsible for this interglacial lasting long enough for the industrial revolution to come about. This means that the Anthroposcene began about 8000 years ago, rather than 150.

3) Warming will enable trees to grow further north, into what is now tundra. This will soak up carbon, but exacerbate warming due to changing the albedo.

4) Earth has about the same amount of carbon as Venus. If we were able to burn all the geologic carbon we'd completely consume the O2 in the atmosphere.

Dan

jack grebe
12-29-2006, 08:53 PM
Or we can do something to remedy/alleviate the problem, rather than continuing to sh*t where we sleep, so to speak.can we though? even if we stop 100% of mans use of fossil fuels, will this stop or even make a dent in whats happening?

huisjen
12-29-2006, 08:58 PM
Yes, it will. The response will be delayed a bit. It's hard to turn a supertanker. But think of your great grandchildren.

Dan

Nicholas Carey
12-29-2006, 09:07 PM
can we though? even if we stop 100% of mans use of fossil fuels, will this stop or even make a dent in whats happening?It will at least slow it down.

But the biggest deal with "global warming" (a misnomer) is that it is "global climate change". Evidence suggests that global warming could cause the great oceanic currents that act as the Earth's heat pump, warming a good chunk of the globe (say, Europe and North America) may well just down. If that happens, global warming becomes global ice age. Northern Europe, for instance, is at about the latitude of Hudson Bay. And the record shows that when this sort of "shut down" of the currents happens it happens quite quickly.

Weather patterns would certainly change: some places that have a good climate might become more-or-less permanently drought-stricken, etc.

All this climactic disruption, especially if it happens fairly suddenly, is quite likely to induce economic/political disruption. If Europe enters the deep freeze, the people that live there are going to want to eat at the very least and quite likely want to move. And where they want to go, the residents may well not want them. Can you say "climate wars"?

The earth's climate is a rather complicated system that we don't understand. We've been introducing a rather large input into this system for more than a century without the faintest idea or understanding of what the outcome might be.

And most importantly, God charged Man with the husbandry -- the care and management -- of the earth and its creatures. I expect he'd like the premises back in slightly better shape than when she handed them to us.

I'm not looking forward to when we have to give the keys back.

George Roberts
12-29-2006, 09:11 PM
"even if we stop 100% of mans use of fossil fuels, will this stop or even make a dent in whats happening?"

No. There is no credible expectation that global warming will be affectd if we stop all use of fossil fuels. Even if all of man's activities stopped today, the effects would be noise.

Only 1 group hs done a long term forecast of climate. It assumed that all human activity stopped. It concluded that at best the effect would be a 6% delay in the time scale - rather than the ice at the poles melting down in 50 years they will melt in 53 years ...

Paul G.
12-29-2006, 09:12 PM
Anyone read future shock or should I say future SHLOCK :D

All those predictions of doom and gloom never happened, I say the same with GW.

Nicholas Carey
12-29-2006, 09:15 PM
Its always fine for you to dictate that others are destroying the planet, but no you are not doing any of it. None, like nadda, nothing, right. Everyone else is being wastefull, using excessive amounts of resourses, but yet you are being enviromentally friendly, yea just the right amount to be a good citizen. :eek: Thats what I really like about you neocons, greedy, wastefull and self servicing hypocrits. ;)I do what I can :D but given that I live in a society that prized consumption for consumption's sake, it's hard to make a dent.

Now about this "neocon" thing... I can pretty much guarantee absolutely that neoconservativism and I can find little ground in common. :D [the really scary thing is that these days, on the relatively rare occasions when I find myself agreeing with people on the right, more often than I'd like, I find myself agreeing with the likes of Pat Buchanan :eek: :D :eek: :D -- who one could hardly call a neocon. Paleocon, perhaps, but not a neocon.]

Paul G.
12-29-2006, 09:20 PM
And most importantly, God charged Man with the husbandry -- the care and management -- of the earth and its creatures. I expect he'd like the premises back in slightly better shape than when she handed them to us.

I'm not looking forward to when we have to give the keys back.

First cut the religious bull.....

We dont have to give any keys back, and we are all going to die period.
No one started the industrial revolution with the intention of experimenting with the climate
Whether we survive as a species or not is of no consequence, all that matters is how we act in this world, so if your thing is to cut your carbon by all means go for it!

marwesmed
12-29-2006, 10:55 PM
If you want something to worry about, try earthquakes, valcanoes, and astorides. These are the things that will alter the earth/weather quicker that global warming.

jack grebe
12-29-2006, 11:04 PM
The earth's climate is a rather complicated system that we don't understand.then how can we say that we caused it?

Only 1 group hs done a long term forecast of climate. It assumed that all human activity stopped. It concluded that at best the effect would be a 6% delay in the time scale - rather than the ice at the poles melting down in 50 years they will melt in 53 years ...then it would stand to reason that we only caused about 6%

ljb5
12-30-2006, 01:54 AM
then how can we say that we caused it?

Because we're the ones who are holding the smoking gun.

Someone has been digging coal and pumping oil and setting it on fire and spewing it into the atmosphere.

Who was it? Was it the orangutans? Was it the koala bears??

No, it was the humans. Duh.


then it would stand to reason that we only caused about 6%

No, that is not a logical conclusion. First of all, George is mistaken (and he knows this) when he says only one study has been done. Many studies have been done. He just likes to quote from one study which is known to be very limited in its scope and model.

We've been over this before. Just for fun, let's pretend George is right -- that there is no way to stop it.

This does not mean that we did not cause it. For example, if you shoot a guy in head, he's going to die quickly. If you give him first aid, he might live 6% longer.

If you think that implies that you're only 6% responsible for his death, you are a true idiot.

It took us several hundred years to get this ball rolling. We will not be able to stop it all at once. Maybe it takes 50 years to stop it. Maybe 53. Either way, it's still us that did it.

Either way, the sooner we stop making it worse, the sooner we can start making it better.

If George were the type of person whose arguments could stand up to some logical inspection, we might ask him why he chose the melting of the ice caps as the only relevant event in his study. Surely he realizes that global warming is a little more complicated than just watching ice melt. He realizes that there are myriad effects and consequences -- some of which have drastic impacts on the quality of human life. There might be quite a lot going on in those last three years of polar ice caps --- and a lot of other important events that happen in the years after. Why doesn't George consider these in his study?

ljb5
12-30-2006, 02:07 AM
Anyone read future shock or should I say future SHLOCK :D

All those predictions of doom and gloom never happened, I say the same with GW.

The fact that some other person was wrong about some other predictions at some other time does not, in any way, prove that everyone is wrong about this.

Paul G.
12-30-2006, 02:09 AM
average cloudiness has never been proven

ljb5
12-30-2006, 02:12 AM
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by that.

Paul G.
12-30-2006, 02:13 AM
logically correct, but you dont take into account emotion

ljb5
12-30-2006, 02:14 AM
Huh? Now you're just being silly.

Paul G.
12-30-2006, 02:14 AM
The clouds are white which makes them efficient heat-reflectors. That is why a cloudy day is mild in temperature - clouds hold the heat in. But they also hold heat out, because the top of the clouds reflect 50% of the sunís heat back into space. Clouds are second only to snow(85%) in heat reflection. With less heat coming in due to reflection off the top surface of the clouds and back into space, the result should be less heat getting to earth so the Earth should cool. Because clouds hold heat in, any measuring equipment set up to measure global warming would give wrong results every time clouds were overhead. Measuring apparati donít have eyes to see clouds. Actually scientists know this and build in an error called íaverage cloudiness'. The trouble is, Ďaverage cloudinessí is not an annual constant. Clouds are never stationary, so canít be pinned to a measuring location. Average Cloudiness has NOT been proven.

Paul G.
12-30-2006, 02:17 AM
you are right about toffler, but I am referring to the emotional aspect of human nature. i.e. mass hysteria

ljb5
12-30-2006, 02:22 AM
Oh, yes, I now understand what you're talking about.

That is an issue of methodology. An important issue, of course, but certainly nothing that should make you think the entire field of research has been discredited.

We can get into the exact methodolgoy of how the measurements are made --- but maybe not tonight.

Suffice it to say, that the measurements are verified by many different measurement techniques. All measurements, of course, require calibration factors -- and there is always some degree of uncertainty associated with the measurement. However, not all measurements suffer from the same type of uncertainties.

When a very large number of measurements from a wide variety of techniques all produce compatible results, a high degree of confidence is obtained.

To put it more simply --- scientists are not so dumb that they didn't think of this already.

ljb5
12-30-2006, 02:29 AM
I am referring to the emotional aspect of human nature. i.e. mass hysteria

Oh, you certainly are right about that... to some extent of course.

A very similar situation is the Y2k bug. That's really a great story.

First, there was a small problem. A very real problem, you must understand.

Next, the media got hold of it (especially right-wing talk radio in the U.S, I don't know why). They went absoultely crazy about it. They were predicting the world would come to an end.

In the meantime, a group of hard-working, smart people sat down and solved the problem. I have several friends who made quite a nice living as database programmers, mostly fixing Y2k.

In the end, nothing happened. Now the true story, you must understand, is that there was a problem and it got fixed. However, the lack of a disaster caused some people to conclude that there never was a problem.

In the case of global warming, you can be sure there is some hysteria. But only among the uninformed.

On the other side of the fence, we have people like George Roberts. He doesn't suffer from hysteria. He suffers from obstinance. He is emotionally committed to a belief system that does not permit him to acknowledge the facts.

There may be others who also suffer from an emotional problem. There is also an emotional component known as "greed." Some people fear that they might have to adjust their lifestyle if they acknowledge global warming. They love their big SUVs so much that they refuse to even consider the facts.

As always, the best antidote to emotional reasoning is a healthy dose of facts and logic. That's why I never shy away from an opportunity to discuss the facts.

Tylerdurden
12-30-2006, 08:34 AM
Too little way to late, Mother's gonna put it back the way it has to be. We have wound up the rubber band and now get ready for the ride. Like a dog shaking off fleas, she's gonna shake rattle and roll.

There is no stopping this, the thought that the Human race will change its lifestyle collectively is a pipe dream, We cannot stop fighting for the dumbest beliefs and greed. What makes one think we can change this course we are on?
The Mayans , the Hopi etc. warned us of the path we were on. They were right so what makes us think they are wrong about the outcome? My advice is get your own houses in order and pray you make it through. Maybe our children will be smart enough to figure out what is most important to our lives and learn to leave a proper legacy to their children. We as parents should be ashamed at what we have wrought.

Leon m
12-30-2006, 10:18 AM
Where is the smoking gun ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/295000/images/_295067_car_exhaust300.jpg

http://file.ohmynews.com/bbs_file/63/smoke%20stack.jpg

George Roberts
12-30-2006, 10:50 AM
"then it would stand to reason that we only caused about 6%"

No. It means that it is too late to stop the major effects. It is more effective to plan for life after the climate change rather than try to prevent it.

George Roberts
12-30-2006, 11:03 AM
"If George were the type of person whose arguments could stand up to some logical inspection, we might ask him why he chose the melting of the ice caps as the only relevant event in his study. Surely he realizes that global warming is a little more complicated than just watching ice melt. He realizes that there are myriad effects and consequences -- some of which have drastic impacts on the quality of human life. There might be quite a lot going on in those last three years of polar ice caps --- and a lot of other important events that happen in the years after. Why doesn't George consider these in his study?"

I did not do do the study.

Regardless of what you think is important relative to climate. The results of the study showed that the best attempts to stop global warming is simply to stretch the time line 6%. Not enough to do any good.

6% is noise in predictions that run along the lines of "the North Atlantic current will stop in 6 or 7 decades" or "the ice caps will be gone in 50 years."

Certainly in 100 years we might look back and comment "had we only ...," but it is not clear that we can see the future clearly enough to know what the best course of action is.

Leon m
12-30-2006, 11:05 AM
I saw the most ironic commercial yesterday...a boy comes into school with a cooler for show and tell. He pulls out a large snowball to the classrooms amazement. Then it flashes back to his parents driving him up the side of a mountain to get this rare snowball...in their brand new Hummer.

Damn sad that they just don't get it. :(

George Roberts
12-30-2006, 11:48 AM
"If George were the type of person whose arguments could stand up to some logical inspection"

I do not give complete arguments. I don't expect others to either.

The purpose of an argument is to present why we each believe what we do. The purpose is not to make others believe.

Logic is not always the best basis for an argument.

ljb5
12-30-2006, 11:54 AM
I saw the most ironic commercial yesterday...a boy comes into school with a cooler for show and tell. He pulls out a large snowball to the classrooms amazement. Then it flashes back to his parents driving him up the side of a mountain to get this rare snowball...in their brand new Hummer.

Damn sad that they just don't get it. :(

I saw the same commercial and I kept waiting for the punchline. I thought it would have been great satire.

Two and Two, please allow me to introduce to you to Four.

Leon m
12-30-2006, 12:11 PM
I saw the same commercial and I kept waiting for the punchline. I thought it would have been great satire.

Two and Two, please allow me to introduce to you to Four.

I know, me too .Are the people at Hummer really that oblivous?

ljb5
12-30-2006, 12:18 PM
Logic is not always the best basis for an argument.

I'm going to add this to the list of dumbest things you've ever said --- right up there with "The Great Depression was a really awsome investment opportunity," the time you coached Joe to abandon his daughter and give away his house -- and the time you ripped that little old lady off for $5000.

You are mistaken when you say that your study is the only one that has done climate predictions. There are, in fact, hundreds if not thousands of published climate models. Check out the NASA webpage (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/modeling/) for a sampling.

We all know why you adhere to this one study -- because you prefer its outcome. That's fine for you, but surely you are aware that there is wide consensus among researchers.

Moreover, it seems you have misunderstood (or mischaracterized) that study. A 6% increase in the lifespan of the polar ice caps is indeed quite siginificant -- and certainly not the only relevant effect which should be considered.

No matter what, the precautionary principle always applies: If you know you're going to crash, stop accelerating before you hit the wall. It would be nice if we cold avert the crash (although unlikely.) It would be nice if we could decelerate a little before the crash --- but for gad's sake -- stop accelerating!

Pierre LaRochelle
12-30-2006, 12:18 PM
One of the perps is the tail pipe of our ever so loved and cherished automobile.

Go ahead and get the biggest one you can, with the biggest engine they make, drive it and comsume as much fuel as you can afford, just sit back and enjoy the ride and the remains of life on earth as we know it, before it changes for the worst.

PL

ljb5
12-30-2006, 12:26 PM
I know, me too .Are the people at Hummer really that oblivous?

I don't think they're oblivious --- I think they're doing it deliberately.

Part of the appeal of the Hummer is the obnoxious, "Screw you, I got mine" attitude.

These are people who enjoy smashing sand castles and think it's "manly" to destroy things.

One of the things I've learned from debating on this forum is that there are a certain number of people here who don't care at all about being right or wrong. They're so focused on attacking me that they really don't care how foolish they end up looking.

I see the same thing in the Hummer commercials. They are aware of the damage they do --- but they think it's worth it to make "tree-huggers" whine.

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-30-2006, 12:38 PM
Understand this:
Most living things on this earth live in a rather precise niche and when that niche is altered what is in it can go caput. Man is somewhat of an exception in that we can survive almost anywhere but, since we are dependent on all the other living things for our sustinence we could go caput too. Only, for us, the caput process could be longer and nastier.

George Roberts
12-30-2006, 02:05 PM
NASA has never done a comparision between drastic reductions in CO2 production and doing nothing.

When I read the comparision I referred to, I gathered some facts about current avg temp, CO2 concentrations and future production, and I ran a very simple model. I discovered that 6% change in the time line is a "reasonable" estimate of the difference between doing nothing and doing everthing. 6% might not be right but it is in the ball park.

But the issue is mute. No one is restraining their CO2 production to a level that will make any measurable difference.

ljb5
12-30-2006, 02:39 PM
When I read the comparision I referred to, I gathered some facts about current avg temp, CO2 concentrations and future production, and I ran a very simple model. I discovered that 6% change in the time line is a "reasonable" estimate of the difference between doing nothing and doing everthing.

Oh, you did the analysis yourself? Why didn't you say so?!

Hmm, George, how can I put this to you delicately?...

Has it occurred to you that you may not be the most competent atmospheric researcher?

The entire scientific community has reached consensus on this issue after decades of exhaustive research and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of meticulous studies....

...and you're George Roberts. :rolleyes:

George Roberts
12-30-2006, 03:03 PM
I don't know...

I have Phd.'s in continuum mechanics and computing science. I know more about fluid flow than I wish I did.

I think that qualifies me to form an independant opinion and solution.

---

If you find reassurance of your opinion in the tens of thousands of studies, so be it.

George Roberts
12-30-2006, 03:09 PM
"the time you coached Joe to abandon his daughter and give away his house"

Joe appears to have a good job and good future. He appears to like his daughter.

Letting his wife use all of his current assets to raise his daughter seems to be a good thing to do. I am sure his wife will be generous in allowing Joe to have as much contact with his daughter as he wishes.

I can only look at my family in giving advice. When my kids were young, I would give up everything for my kids. Now that my kids are grown, I would give up everything for my grandkids.

I imagine that everyone is that way. (I understand that most of those who post here are more interested in their personal future than that of their children but ...)

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-30-2006, 03:18 PM
Or we can do something to remedy/alleviate the problem, rather than continuing to sh*t where we sleep, so to speak.

We've only got one blue marble to play with: why [continue to] screw it up?



I think the only meaningful thing we could do is stop overpopulating the place.

When they make beer or wine etc, they add these little yeasties to the brew that go about consuming all the sugar they can find and sh*t alcohol and reproduce... this continues unabated until all the sugar is gone or until they've shat so much alcohol that it kills them all.

Whether you are talking about yeast, or alge blooms, or ebola outbreaks, nature seems to have a way of dealing with organisms that over consume and over populate. I don't think the planet needs our help. It will be here long after we're gone. But it is we who need its help, if we want to keep this run going on a bit longer. :-D

Leon m
12-30-2006, 03:31 PM
That about sums it up.

Phillip Allen
12-30-2006, 03:53 PM
Where does Krakatoa (sp) fit into this scheme?

Tylerdurden
12-30-2006, 05:51 PM
Where does Krakatoa (sp) fit into this scheme?

Boom, Hot hot hot, then no sun, cold cold cold, game over.

ljb5
12-30-2006, 06:28 PM
Where does Krakatoa (sp) fit into this scheme?


It's in there somewhere, of course.

As always, if you think you've stumbled across something that has escaped the attention of the entire scientific community, you should feel free to write a letter to a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Who knows? You might even get one of those lucrative research grants.

I'm going to go waaay out on a limb here and say that the scientific community is probably aware of Krakatoa. Just a hunch.

Not only are they probably aware of it, I'd be willing to bet that they've found evidence of the eruption in ice cores and other sources of historical data. They've probably even gone so far as to use that data as a means to calibrate their measurements.

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-31-2006, 12:39 PM
I think he was talking about the NEXT eruption of Krakatoa ;-)

jack grebe
12-31-2006, 12:58 PM
or maybe yellow stone:rolleyes:

Phillip Allen
12-31-2006, 01:22 PM
or maybe yellow stone:rolleyes:

now there's the one that's going to end life on this planet

ljb5
12-31-2006, 05:11 PM
I'm not sure I see what the next eruption of Krakatoa has to do with it. Does anyone know when that might be? 50 years? 500? 5000?

Let me see if I understand the logic here.... you're suggesting that hte possible occurance of some event at some point in the distant future mitigates or eliminates our responsibility for our current actions?

Let's see how well that logic holds up in court... "Well, you see, your honor, he was going to die eventually... so by murdering him, I wasn't really doing anything that wasn't going to happen by some other method...."

By the same logic, we could say that the eruption of Yellowstone will eventually end life on earth, so there really was no need to invade Iraq.

Sometimes it is evident that conservatives are absolutely allergic to the concepts of accountability and responsibility.