Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I love when I'm right RE: "Global Warming"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by dalem
    Me, I'm blinded by science. Good heavens, Miss Yakamoto, you're beautiful!
    LMAO

    Thanks for the laugh, Mr. Dolby.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by dalem
      Or a piano might fall on your head.

      Speculate and engage in storytelling all day long, but in the end it's meaningless.
      Speculation is always essential.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Bulgaroctonus
        Speculation is always essential.
        In its place.

        One can speculate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere can drive a global warming trend outside of historical parameters all the live-long day, but that speculation is not fact.

        -dale

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by dalem
          One can speculate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere can drive a global warming trend outside of historical parameters all the live-long day, but that speculation is not fact/
          How do you know that it isn't fact?

          The National Academy of Sciences believes that human activity is the cause of climate change. They are the top scientists from around the nation. I know that the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists agree that CO2 is the major cause for global warming. There are only a few qualified scientists that have actually published dissenting opinions. As far as I know, the uncertainty is not whether this is true, but how much the planet will actually warm by.

          We don't do anything about it because Bush doesn't believe there is global warming.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by barrowaj
            How do you know that it isn't fact?
            Umm, because I'm not a f*cking gape-mouthed moron?

            The National Academy of Sciences believes that human activity is the cause of climate change. They are the top scientists from around the nation. I know that the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists agree that CO2 is the major cause for global warming. There are only a few qualified scientists that have actually published dissenting opinions. As far as I know, the uncertainty is not whether this is true, but how much the planet will actually warm by.

            We don't do anything about it because Bush doesn't believe there is global warming.
            It has nothing to do with the President. It has everything to do with there being no proven connective mechanism between CO2 levels and global temperature. They may prove one tomorrow, but not even the National Academy of Sciences has proof today.

            -dale

            Comment


            • #51
              Would the Bush administration do something about it if the scientists proved it?

              I have my doubts.
              Walk like a priest.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Somaton
                Would the Bush administration do something about it if the scientists proved it?

                I have my doubts.
                It's a 2 part question though.

                Part 1: Are humans causing any part of the perceived global temperature rise?

                If the answer is "yes", which it is not yet, then we have

                Part 2: Can we do anything about it that is practical?

                Hard to say what any administration would do if the answers to both 1 and 2 prove to be "yes".

                -dale

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by dalem
                  Umm, because I'm not a f*cking gape-mouthed moron?



                  It has nothing to do with the President. It has everything to do with there being no proven connective mechanism between CO2 levels and global temperature. They may prove one tomorrow, but not even the National Academy of Sciences has proof today.

                  -dale

                  Vol. 80, No. 39, September 28, 1999, p. 453.


                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases


                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Authors

                  Tamara S. Ledley, Eric T. Sundquist, Stephen E. Schwartz, Dorothy K. Hall, Jack D. Fellows, and Timothy L. Killeen
                  For more information, contact Tamara S. Ledley, TERC, 2067 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02140 USA; E-mail: [email protected].


                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Copyright 1999 American Geophysical Union


                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Infrared (IR) active gases, principally water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ozone (O3), naturally present in the Earth’s atmosphere, absorb thermal IR radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. The atmosphere is warmed by this mechanism and, in turn, emits IR radiation, with a significant portion of this energy acting to warm the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a consequence the average surface air temperature of the Earth is about 30° C higher than it would be without atmospheric absorption and reradiation of IR energy [Henderson-Sellers and Robinson, 1986; Kellogg, 1996; Peixoto and Oort, 1992].

                  This phenomenon is popularly known as the “greenhouse effect,” and the IR active gases responsible for the effect are likewise referred to as “greenhouse gases.” The rapid increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases since the industrial period began has given rise to concern over potential resultant climate changes.

                  The AGU Council approved a position statement on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases in December 1998. The statement and a short summary of the procedures that were followed in its preparation, review, and adoption were published in the February 2, 1999, issue of Eos (p. 49) [AGU, 1999, also at AGU's Web site: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change.html]. The present article reviews scientific understanding of this issue, as presented in peer-reviewed publications. This understanding serves as the underlying basis of the position statement.
                  See a lot more at the following website:

                  http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I know what a Greenhouse Effect is. But no one has proved that human industry is affecting ours.

                    -dale

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by dalem
                      I know what a Greenhouse Effect is. But no one has proved that human industry is affecting ours.

                      -dale
                      Fine, here you go, from the same site, the American Geophysical Union.

                      http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html

                      Originally posted by American Geophysical Union
                      The principal greenhouse gas concentrations that have increased over the industrial period are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11 (CCl3F) and CFC-12 (CCl2F2). The observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 280 ppm in the preindustrial era to about 364 ppm in 1997 (Figure 1) [Friedli et al., 1986; Hansen et al., 1998; Keeling and Whorf, 1998] has come largely from fossil fuel combustion and cement production.
                      Originally posted by American Geophysical Union
                      The atmospheric concentration of CH4 has increased from about 700 ppb in preindustrial times to about 1721 ppb in 1994 (Figure 1) [Houghton et al., 1996]. Fossil-fuel related sources of CH4 amount to approximately 70-120 Tg CH4/yr (1 Tg=1012 g). Increases in CH4 sources resulting from rice cultivation, animal husbandry, biomass burning, and landfills contribute about 200 - 350 Tg CH4/yr [Schimel et al., 1996].
                      Originally posted by American Geophysical Union
                      Additional CO2 might be removed by burial in soils or deep sea sediments through mechanisms that, although poorly understood, are generally believed to require times extending to thousands of years [Harden et al., 1992; Schlesinger, 1990; Stallard, 1998]. Removing some of the anthropogenic CO2 by this mechanism may require reactions with carbonate sediments in the deep sea that occur on timescales of thousands of years [Archer et al., 1998; Boyle, 1983; Sundquist, 1990]. On the basis of such analyses, it is now generally believed that a substantial fraction of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, and about 15-30% will remain for thousands of years.
                      I'll find more if you want. Let the duel of sources begin!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by dalem
                        Umm, because I'm not a f*cking gape-mouthed moron?
                        So then you know more than all of the climatologists in the NAS then.

                        Originally posted by dalem
                        It has nothing to do with the President. It has everything to do with there being no proven connective mechanism between CO2 levels and global temperature. They may prove one tomorrow, but not even the National Academy of Sciences has proof today.
                        This is typical of someone that doesn't understand science. The whole field of science is based off of inference and deduction. There is no way that we can experimentally "prove" that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, but we can infer that it is the cause from the facts. Just because we can't prove that CO2 is the cause of global warming doesn't make it not true.

                        And, by the way, there is no way that you can know that CO2 isn't the cause of global warming.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Bulgaroctonus
                          Fine, here you go, from the same site, the American Geophysical Union.

                          I'll find more if you want. Let the duel of sources begin!
                          For what reason? What is your claim?

                          -dale

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by barrowaj
                            So then you know more than all of the climatologists in the NAS then.
                            If they are saying that there is a definite relation between industrial CO2 and planetary temperature, then yes.

                            This is typical of someone that doesn't understand science.
                            Actually it is typical of someone who is uncomfortable making definitive claims from poor data. But I apprecaite the accusation anyway.

                            The whole field of science is based off of inference and deduction. There is no way that we can experimentally "prove" that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, but we can infer that it is the cause from the facts. Just because we can't prove that CO2 is the cause of global warming doesn't make it not true.
                            And the converse is equally true. You should remember that before you attempt to lecture me.

                            And, by the way, there is no way that you can know that CO2 isn't the cause of global warming.
                            True.

                            Here's my last post from the ice cap thread:

                            "Praxus-

                            The actual measurements of C02 concentrations are pretty good - you can take ice cores at several depths in several regions and you look, quite simply, at the air bubbles trapped within the ice. That tells a lot about the air composition at the time of the bubble at that locale, and if a bunch of contemporaneuous bubbles from different geographic locations all indicate the same composition, it's a pretty safe bet to extrapolate the broad ratios of certain compounds and isotopes in the planetary atmosphere at that time.

                            Temperature is much more difficult, but still doable, again relating to isotope levels (usually Oxygen-16 to -18 ratios).

                            So the methodology is quite sound.

                            It is worthwhile to note that throughout geologic time, the highest average planetary temperatures are not always (I'd have to re-read the article to know if it's "not usually") directly matching the highest concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, from the data we have so far. Nor do they appear to be in a chasing or triggering mode - the curves are simply different.

                            That is not to say that C02 and other "greenhouse gasses" are completely decoupled from the Greenhouse Effect which traps heat in our atmosphere, but it does contradict one of the lazier assumptions of the current human-drive global warming hypothesis; that elevated C02 automatically means high temperatures. The data so far clearly indicate that that is not true.

                            -dale"

                            If you want to continue to believe that I simply don't "understand science", then go right ahead, Captain Kyoto.

                            -dale

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by dalem
                              For what reason? What is your claim?

                              -dale
                              My claim is that that human activity is causing increased emissions of greenhouse gases. These excess greenhouse gases are causing a rise in global temperature.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Bulgaroctonus
                                My claim is that that human activity is causing increased emissions of greenhouse gases. These excess greenhouse gases are causing a rise in global temperature.
                                The connection is unlikely and unproven.

                                -dale

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X