Global Warming is Socialist Propaganda
Very true Mr Keeley - there will always be winners and losers. Democratic Socialism worked OK in Europe over the past fifty years or so, but an aging population is changing things rapidly. The world is changing too quickly and it is difficult to keep up
Maybe politicians and lawyers should be 'invited' for a swim whilst wearing concrete socks.
What did you do wrong? You disagreed with 'One Who Knows' I wouldn't worry about it
Have a good New Year!
Because resources are always limited
If we spend them on imaginary goals, we don't have anything left for the real ones...I know, but tl;dr, sadly, is what I do best.
You live in France and I live in Nebraska, so by definition you will win any game of Greener Than Thou. But be careful about making assumptions. I've only had my license for two years, drive an inherited junker from my b-i-l mainly to go to the grocery store and library, and go through about a tank a month, so although you are, indeed, Green Than I, I do pretty well for living in an area with no public transportation, a severe problem with sprawl, and a singular lack of sidewalks and walking trails.
I'm apparently missing your point. I didn't say we had no interest in the Middle East's economy, I said dependence on their oil was contrary to US interests, and global ones as well, in light of AGW and Islamic terrorism. I don't have any issue with investment in other sectors of their economy (among other things, they've got some pretty excellent solar and wind resources too, from my understanding) as long as it's done in a way that doesn't give them leverage over us. Right now, they've got the leverage, which is bad for a whole host of reasons I doubt I need to explain.
- sandra rinckposted 15 years ago
0While it is true that every country has hand in the downfall of our enviornment. China has in the last few years managed to surpass the United States, as was previously the country accountable for most of the pollution, in it's carbon emmissions.
America is number one in our consumption of plastic, next in line being Europe.
When I was at the Museum of Natural History in San Diego a couple months ago, I found that America rules the roost in water waste on average American uses apx. 430, Europeans 260 gallons of water a day while in Africa they manage with less then 2 gallons a day.
I, myself conserve as much as I can, and for the better part of my life, even when I did have a car, always chose to walk but damn me to Hell for being spoiled because even though I conserve, African's put me to shame.
So I am displeased with most of the countries because we sit pretty and comfortable, even though some will still complain, while other have nothing.
PS. I would double check the accuracy of my stats because they are off the top of my head but it is something like that. Oh, and here is a prettier graph. That help?
It's a bubble Mark, it's just about to busrt, and all you worries will evaporate with it
Care to back that up with anything?
Although, if you take it as a bubble, the next logical step is an increase in burning fossil fuels, and another, sharper rise in temperatures, followed by a catastrophic event that triggers the burst.
Not that I am worried about it, it is going to happen and therefore not worth worrying about.
But, like all other bubbles, there is an opportunity to prevent it.
Mark,
I do accept that the chart you posted shows a temperature increase over last 100 years or so.
I don't accept the BS about global warming and linking it to human behavior. Stating this is not enough, you have to prove this link. Which is an impossible task, considering the amount of reliable data available.
Did you ever notice that day is normally hotter than night? Summer hotter than winter?
Nature always works in cycles, and you know that probably better than me. What makes you thinking this is not just yet another, say 500 years long, cycle that we are witnessing now? Use Occam's razor please, would you?
Occam's razor? OK - Global temperatures are rising.
What is the most logical, simplest reason for that?
We have no evidence that there is a cyclical temperature cycle that causes this.
We are burning more and more fossil fuels all the time, and have been since we discovered them.
The simplest answer is that burning fossil fuels on this level causes the temperatures to rise.
Simple common sense actually, but let's try a scientific experiment:
Sit in your car in a locked garage and leave the engine running and see if you get hotter.
Let me know how you get on with thatOn a global scale, most of the factors both human and natural are beyond our control--assuming we could even know all the factors and I content we can't.
It only matters, if you don't believe in baby Jesus.Individually, they may be beyond our control, perhaps. But collectively we can make a difference.
Baby Jesus has no place in a science discussion. One forum up for irrational beliefs please.
- you are ignorant! Ignoring what you can see in front of your face qualifies as ignorance. If you cannot see that the amount of fuels burned since man discovered them and how they correlate to the accelerated temperature change, then you are just being ignorant.
The human activity created the "garage". Yes, one massive volcanic explosion such as Vesuvious (however you spell it) produces more carbon into the air than all of human existence, however the addition of human activity by cutting down our trees that recycle our air and burning of them as well as other carbon emmitting "things" increases, accelerates and traps more of the heat on Earth with no escape and there are no trees left to recycle the carbon. Of course you understand it, but ignore it.
The temperature increase of the Earth is not what were are worried about, humans can handle a gradual increase in temperature, it's the ice age that is concerning. The 1 degree is enough to melt the polar ice caps, which has been seen in the past, how fast they are melting is alarming.
I am sure Mark can find some videos for you to show you in reality how fast the ice bergs in places such as South America, (there are ice caps in south america incase you didn't know) in just the last 10 years and faster as the years pass by.
The shift is too drastic for humans to keep up with. The damage is irreversable but if you are hoping for worse, then keep doing what you are doing but if you want some hope, then stop!
again, you don't get it, the heat wont kill you, the carbon monoxide will. To sit in your car while the garage heats up because you want to prove you can handle the heat is bloody stupid. When you finally figure out that something else is killing you, you just may not have what it takes to get out of your car and open the garage door to let it out.
not the point. how fast it heats up is. The addition of the car makes the temeprature rise faster.
Thank you for the giggles Mark
Now, can you answer seriously?That was serious.
Actually I am not going to argue that it is not cyclical. You just have one part of the cycle missing and are prepared to take a leap of faith to do so. That is the trouble with believing irrational beliefs such as god. It negates the possibility of coming to a conclusion in any other way.
Here is the cycle -
Humans evolve
Humans discover fossil fuels
Humans discover burning fossil fuels provides energy
Humans burn fossil fuels
Global temperatures rise
Global temperatures reach a point where human life cannot be supported
Humans die out
Humans stop burning fossil fuels
Temperatures drop
Cycle complete.
Nice cycle.
A bit longer than than I was suggesting, even if you accept 6000 years as humanity age
You are making assumption here that burning fossil fuels causes temperature rise. It is not proven
Now, coming back to the post you claimed was serious. I can't really take it seriously. Give it a thought, I know you can.
We have no evidence that there is a cyclical temperature cycle that causes this.
Absolutely. We have no evidence to the contrary, too. However, we do have scientific evidence that nature in general and temperatures in particular change in cycles. Even on your chart you can see a dozen year long cycles revealed. It is much more logical to assume that longer cycles exist, than that they are not. So, to come up with a natural expalnation for this phenomenon, we need only one assumption: there exists a longer temperature cycle.
We are burning more and more fossil fuels all the time, and have been since we discovered them.
No question about that
The simplest answer is that burning fossil fuels on this level causes the temperatures to rise.
This is an assumption build on a series of underlying assumptions. You are assuming there exists a threshold in Earth's heat dissipation abilities. Which is not unreasonable at all, but it is still an asumption. And you are assuming that mentioned threshold is triggered already. Quite an assumption I would say. You will need a heap of complicated calculations with their own assumptions to support this assumption, because you are talking exact numbers here
Sit in your car in a locked garage and leave the engine running and see if you get hotter.
There is no evidence that termal characteristics of a closed room are identical to termal charcteristics of Earth. Yet one more assumption
So, the bootom line:
My hypothesis - one reasonable and simple assumption
Your hypothesis - a series of assumptions dealing with complex calculations and more assumptions
Talking about razorNo - your hypothesis ignores several vital factors. And make some pretty big assumptions also.
How long have we been burning fossil fuels?
You are assuming that there is no threshold on earth's heat dissipation.
You are assuming that because there are cycles in the short term, there are also cycles in the long term, even though the evidence shows an upward trend.
And this is supposed to be a scientific forum, so we can forget about the stupid beliefs that some how manage to justify your poor behavior towards others. I know, it is the christian way but let's try and stick to facts.
And any time you would care to provide the scientific evidence for any of your beliefs, feel free.Hi Sufi
I don't think I am accusing anybody in anything, I am just not accepting what has been presented as a conclusive evidence, and trying to explain why I am doing so
I am not a scientist, I am just a girl, ya know
Tell me why it is not logical? Please...Sorry Mr Deeds, I was not too clear in my question
I was actually asking what is not logical about assuming that long term temp cycles do exist.
And sorry again, I don't buy your "tipping point". You know, creating a sense of URGENCY is a standard marketing trick, very effective - not on me, thoughThanks to Ralph, Lita, Kerry et al. for the good points!
Definitely not 'just a girl!'
You are not fooling anybody with the 'Lindsey Lohan' thing - you make some very reasonable and well thought out points. No problem with that - it is the implication by some, that all scientists are raving Marxists wanting to bring down the US economy, that I do not like. Most research scientists are poorly paid and on short-term contracts. They are too busy making ends meet to bother with a political agenda.
The point is that no assumption can be correct, not just yours - all that we can do is gather evidence and try to make the best model to predict what is likely to happen. This is not weak science - modelling is essential in many fields of science to try to predict trends. Doctors use it to predict the spread of a disease, meteorologists to forecast the weather and economists try to gauge economic patterns (some predicted the crash, but nobody listened!). The model used for predicting future trends in global warming and long term climate change appears to be pretty good. Going back to Lita's point, this is why I do not like Al Gore - he manipulates the whole thing and the genuine research is lost.
Unfortunately, the green movement has become an industry. A lot of research is funded by oil companies or environmental movements, and is compromised; Dubya's funding tended to go to scientists supporting the nay lobby. The whole thing is a quagmire of propaganda and BS - the advertising men dictate the whole course of research. In this, our views are not too far apart.
However, I understand how to pick through the poor research - that is my job. From the research that I have looked at, I agree with the IPCC's finding that there is a 90% chance that the rate of Global Warming has been increased by human sourced carbon dioxide emissions. 90% is not the magic '95%' required for scientifically accepted 'proof,' but is pretty close. That is why I believe in erring on the side of caution. The other good posters on here have added other points - that reducing dependence upon fossil fuels and cleaning the environment is a good thing. I live in a beautiful area of the world and would like to keep it that way - if I came and emptied my trash-can in your backyard, I think that you would be pissed off.
The political thing is another matter. Politicians seek any excuse to tax us. Oil companies now portray themselves as 'Green and Cuddly.' That is for you to sort out politically rather than trying to blame science. Take the Toyota Prius, loved by Hollywood. It is the biggest scam going, and you are better off buying a small, economic car for getting stuck in gridlock. Advertisers are the real problem here, and I have little time for marketing executives who play on fear.
Finally, as I pointed out on the other thread, it makes economic sense to go green. To heat our water costs 300 Euros per year, using wood. A solar water heater costs 1500 Euros and will pay for itself in 5 years. Not 'socialist,' just common sense!
Hope that makes sense - have not had enough coffee, so everything is a little fuzzy!
Just read the tipping point bit - looking from the oceanography side, if global warming continues, it will affect the underlying currents adversely. This is not a good thing. Using the argument that advertisers use urgency, so it must be a conspiracy, is a little short-sighted. Pick through the adverts and there are some worrying underlying trends.
Oh my!
OK, let's go one by one
What exactly several factors my hypothesis ignores? Please list, I will discuss
I don't know exactly how long we have been doing this, you don't know either. 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? What difference does it make?
No, I am not assuming anything in that regard. You are assuming there is a threshold. It is exactly like with believers and atheists, remember? If you assume something exists, prove it
Yes, I am assuming this. Don't see anything wrong with assumptions, you are using the same method. Oh, I am surprised I have to explain this, but cycles consist of trends. Trend up - trend down - trend up - trend down, ad infinitum, you know. Also, my assumption is based not only on short term temp cycles. All nature is cyclical, are you going to argue with this? Temp cycles exist in all timeframes, remember periodically coming ice ages? Not that wiki can serve as an authoritative source, but just to illustrate the point:
Here you are making an absolutely ungrounded assumption about my beliefs. I am not a Christian, and I do not belong to any formal religion. Also, would appreciate any example of my poor behavior so I can correct it, my apologies in advance
And finally, you are asking me yet another time to prove that something does not exist. On religious forums you firmly established the rule that proof burden is on the side of a believer. You believe human caused global warming exists, not me - so I don't have to prove anything, you know. Or is it different on scientific forum and this rule does not apply?OMG Milla, the graph you show proves that there were time periods when "only the Earth" was responsible for the global warming.
Now couple what the Earth can do and what we have added to it, however significant or insignificant it may be.
Given the "data" from the graphs from you and Mark, what is still shining through is that the next ice period is going to be a doozie!
If anything at all whether you believe it is purley nature and man had no fault in it or not, consider when it does come around. What will we use for heat? What will we eat? What work will there be?
Solar shingles or systems wont be of any use either.Take it easy Sis!
We personally are not going to live through the next ice age in our current bodies, so we'll worry when we get there
Oh, and I am not saying that man had no fault in anyting, far from that - I think we definitely are the nastiest occupants over here, by far. I just don't see any conclusive evidence that our misbehavior somehow affected the global temperature trend, that's it
- Leta Sposted 15 years ago0
- sandra rinckposted 15 years ago0
- Leta Sposted 15 years ago0
Regardless of the 'science' presented on both sides, doesn't it make sense for an intelligent species to err on the side of caution?
And does it have to be, Oh, the next ice age killed us, that's nature, or, Oh, we used fossil fuels and we can't change, were all dead?
Maybe we figure it out and keep on living?
Not using fossil fuels makes sense anyway--considering obesity (caused in part, by excessive use of automobiles), the destruction of the environment (name any number of examples can be made here), the fact that these fuels are not renewable & that many renewable energy sources exist (wind, biodiesel, water, sun, etc.).
Besides the fact that they are often just plain evil (hence wanting to 'just keep what they got' like kindergartners in a play box hogging the buckets and shovel), the right wing 'ohhhh my prosperity, ohhh the horror' types are usually stupid to boot. How much more 'prosperity' is truly to be had by developing these new technologies? Do they ever think in this direction? One wonders if they ever think--or just worry like animals about obtaining/losing personal power and maintaining sensate pleasures for themselves.
There! Got that out.I totally agree with you that we can certainly err on the side of caution. We need to reduce our carbon footprint (by walk, bike or public transportation), reuse the paper cups/bottles, recycle whenever possible, reduce or shutdown electric/electronic appliances/equipments when not in use (includes TV/Computer and others), reduce water wastage, better use of heating(only switch on when required instead of leaving it on all the time), and making other small life style choices to make lesser negative impact on this beautiful planet of ours.
On a lighter note it maybe a while before moon or mars can be made habitable in the near future
Eric, you are my hero!!!!
I'll join FSM tomorrow, and right after Xmas will fly to Somalia
Mark, will you join Somalia pirates in their noble mission? Eric's chart proves this is THE method to stop Global Warming!
Of course. Eric is my hero too. He was gently pointing out that your religious beliefs are all you are listening to here.
Using your "razor," you have decided not only that there MUST be cycles in temperature changes, 'cause..... Well, because there must be. It gets colder at night and warmer in the day, cooler in winter, warmer in summer - therefore there must be a bigger cycle that we haven't seen yet.
But also - you know where the cycle will stop and know also that we will survive the high point.
Not only that, but you are certain that burning billions of barrels of oil, cutting down trees willy-nilly, over fishing the seas to extinction and dumping toxic waste all over the planet has no effect on this cycle that you know is happening.
My what a clever girl you are. And you said you were "just" a girl.
Did god tell you ?
Because that is your Occam's razor answer for how we came to be here. And let's face it - you think human kind is 6,000 years old.....
Hey, I'm down with Ramen!
- Leta Sposted 15 years ago0
Yah, CW--
Lol, I'm telling everybody to see Wall-e. What was a cute cartoon for some came across actually quite sad to me! ....oh, and then follow it up by seeing Artificial Intelligence (AE, the movie) and tell me what conclusions you come to! We've created our replacements! I'm just joking, really. Honestly, I believe, if we can visualize these things first (and we are), then we overcome our idiocy.
Plain out, now, seriously, isn't using the cycles of nature for renewable sources--imitating what is there in nature--a more elegant solution, one that will build those lovely prosperous capitalist futures AND keep people in jobs, and make sure more people around the world are comfortable, too?Lita- I saw Wall-E and was aghast that due to over dependence on robots sometimes we can be controlled and also become so unhealthy that we can't even walk. I haven't seen AE but honestly the conclusions must be similar.
I agree lots of new jobs can be created with the "Go Green" theme. But I don't know why so much is being said about capitalism or socialism when it is neither but a question of being concerned for our environment. We are seeing some symptoms like unseasonal rainfalls , hurricanes and so on across the world. We just have to be more careful of our resources and environment since not being careful enough isn't an option.
- sandra rinckposted 15 years ago0
Now that is an interesting chart.
I find that "deforestation" without "reforestation" is...well...umm.. I have no words to describe what I feel about that, then again I am one of those people who grew up in the Pacific Northwest and fell in love with trees when I was a kid.
I was telling CWB (Cold War Baby) the other day a little personal story about the trees.
Firstly, growing up I was taught to be respectful of the things in nature, my dad is a nature loving nut, and my mom was and is always conservative.
So in middle school we did the Arbor Day day thing and they bought for us all these baby trees for us to go plant. So we all got a tree and went out to plant them and I was so proud of us for giving back to the Earth and I thought for sure I was helping to make a difference.
Then a couple weeks went by, everyday I would stop by "my" tree and see how it was doing until one day it was gone.
When I asked the teachers whey the trees were gone, they told us that " " said we had planted the trees on government property without their permission and needed to have a permit and pay for the use of the land.
Till this day I am sad about it and so propganda, socialist, or whatever does exist and the do care more about the money then the Earth.We are hoping to plant a couple more olive trees in the spring, so we shall name one Sandra
OMG! I think I want to cry.
Thank you. No worries
A hub about olive trees should be coming in the spring, with some pictures, so watch this space. Only twenty years before they produce olives!
Mr Knowles,
Did you actually bother to read my reply to you before responding? You are talking to somebody else not me, you know
Here it is, for your convenience:If you are not a christian, I deeply apologize for suggesting you are. This is a mortal insult as far as I am concerned, so - Sorry. From all the comments you had left about humankind being 6,000 years old, I made that assumption.
Plus all the other deniers I have encountered (with the exception of your good friend Misha) have been christians.
Seeing as you are Ukrainian/Filipino - I also took that as an indicator. Every Filipino I have known was strong Roman Catholic and the few Ukrainians I have known were Orthodox Christians.
My mistake. And the bad behavior comment was aimed at christians as a group, although I don't really see any difference between all the major one god religions.
Please let me know what you do believe so I can make appropriate fun of you, unless you are an atheist (and I don't mean communist)
OK, Proof , and disabusing you of the notion that we are not having an effect on climate, which is basically what you are saying. You are also saying that there are cyclical patterns in nature. You are also saying that the best assumption is that there is no limit to the amount of heat the earth can dissipate and this is the most logical conclusion. Plus you do not know when we started burning fossil fuels in any quantity, and feel that this does not matter. That is several separate issues. Lets deal with each one separately -
Cycles
Yes, there are cycles in nature. You have mentioned a few. Day/night, summer/winter, etc
These cyclical patterns always end in the death of whatever is being cycled out to allow something else to be cycled in. As will this pattern you are describing. Let us start with since records began. Around 1880. This is s graphical representation of global temperature as measured since that time. I do not have any measurements from before this time, so I will have to work from this.
This data is collected by nasa, and I don't think we can accuse them of being socialists
So, we both agree that temperatures have been rising for this time period, and we can both see that there are "cycles" within this graph, where the cycle completes, and temperatures start to drop, and then rise again. Nevertheless the overall trend is upwards.
Now, you are assuming that this trend will stop and we will start down again. That may be the case, but where do you think it will stop? And this is crucial. Do you think we will survive this point? Of course you do. Why?
I see no reason why it would stop. And neither do the world's governments and the bulk of the world's scientists.
Also, it is a reasonable assumption that this graph does not show the same thing if we ran it backwards, because if it did, we would have been in an extended ice age for quite some time and in fact temperatures were relatively steady as best we can ascertain for the last 12,000 years and the increase has only been seen in the 20th century, before which time it was considerably colder, but no where near enough to suggest that this graph continues the trend downwards as we go back.
Coincidentally, we did not start burning fossil fuels in great quantity until 1859 when oil was discovered in Pennsylvania. Yes, we burned the odd bit of coal, but this was the start, and our fuel consumption has been steadily increasing since that time.
No connection as far as you are concerned.? This current upward trend did not start until almost the exact year we started burning oil. Yet you assume there is no connection. OK, next. Not conclusive proof, I know, but a strong coincidence.
Sorry, but I am going to use a few quotes rather than my own words for the next bit. Others have already made these arguments
"
The Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things - particularly changes in the Earth's orbit in relation to the Sun, which has driven the cycles of ice ages in the past, as well as volcanic eruptions and variations in the energy being emitted from the Sun. But even when we take all these factors into account, we cannot explain the temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years both on land and in the oceans - for example, eleven of the last twelve years have been the hottest since records started in 1850.
So what is causing this increase in average global temperature? The natural greenhouse gas effect keeps the Earth around 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be and, without it, the Earth would be extremely cold. It works because greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, but mostly water vapour, act like a blanket around the Earth. These gases allow the Sun's rays to reach the Earth's surface but hinder the heat they create from escaping back into space. Indeed, the ability of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to trap heat in this way has been understood for nearly 200 years and is regarded as firmly established science.
Any increases in the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean that more heat is trapped and global temperatures increase - an effect known as 'global warming'. We know from looking at gases found trapped in cores of polar ice that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years. From the radioactivity and chemical composition of the gas we know that this is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the production of cement and the widespread burning of the world's forests. The increase in global temperature is consistent with what science tells us we should expect when the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase in the way that they have.
It has been alleged that the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to emissions from volcanoes, but these account for less than one per cent of the emissions due to human activities."
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6230
Much like the theory of evolution,, the theory of climate change is the best reason we currently have for the temperature changes we are witnessing. No better theory has presented itself. If you are really interested in more information - go here
http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdispl … 0&f=84
I am not going to argue that there have not been climate changes in the past, but nothing like the rapid changes we see now and have been seeing for the last 100 years.
The earth has a limit of heat dissipation or not
Not going to blind you with science. You assume there is no limit. I assume there is a limit.
If you can name me one single, solitary anything that has no boundaries or limits, I will change my tune. I assume the earth has limits because I do not know of any single other thing that doesn't. Everything is finite. Everything has limits. Even the universe I think Never really understood that. But still - name me one other thing that has no limits and I could be persuaded that you have a valid reason for thinking this. Otherwise this is a pure leap of faith on your part.OK, here you go...
No problem, just try to read what I post - I never said that
What?
Misha is not your friend any more?
I believe that people are hypocritical
No, I am saying that our effect on climate is well within the system tolerance levels.
I am not saying this either - see detailed responce below
In any quantity - does not matter, and I don't know, correct.
It will stop eventually. All things come to an end, even uptrends. Anybody who thinks they are not is fooling themselves, like in a housing bubble However, I never said I know when and at what level it will end. Neither I said anything about us surviving "this point".
I don't think this assumption is reasonable, by your own terms. You deny that trend may eventually stop upwards, but assume it will stop downwards. Where is the logic? Also, take a second look at the chart I posted - there were quite a few wild temperature fluctuations during the last several million years. I can hardly attribute them to human activity
How do you know it did not? All the data you presented coincidentally start at the exact moment of us starting burning fossil fuels in noticable quantities. You did not present any data for the preceding period. Why?
This goes off our initial set of questions, so let's finish with them first, or our posts will get to absolutely unreadable length
I am more interested in entertainment, and it is boring over there
I think the chart I posted proves otherwise. Here is yet another chart made from the same data, for the last 400,000 years, which gives a better idea of the speed of the changes in the past:
You did not read what I wrote again. I said this is a reasonable assumption. What is unreasonable, is to expect be so tight, that it is triggered by a measly addition of 0.01% - which is about how much energy in all forms humanity consumes in comparison to how much Earth absorbes from the Sun.
Oh, sure, there are quite a few things that don't have a limit. Numbers. Time. Universe. Just to name a few. Oh, and stupidity, too! Change your tuneNice chart, Milla
The problem is the here and now - the Earth's temperature has fluctuated for millions of years. It will continue to do so long after humanity finally self-destructs. The problem is the speed of the change and how it will affect life now.
Mind you, noting the TMG's idea about overpopulation, that might not be such a bad thing!Hi Sufi,
I am pretty much sure it is not the first time Earth is experiencing such swift changes. Look at the zoom in I made from the same Vostok data, about 130,000 years back:
Does it ring any bell?
PS Still thinking on my reply to your previous post
Ah, semantics and metaphysics. Nice
That will win out every time. You sure you are not a christian?
Although you managed to avoid answering every single one of my earlier questions, and pulling figures such as 0.01% out of your backside does not really help, because if you had looked at any of the links I left, or any of the other information offered by the others, you would see that the problem is not merely a matter of energy consumption, it is a matter of hazardous by-products and various other factors.
Care to translate that figure into dangerous toxins released into the biosphere instead?
Did you actually visit any of the links?
Having watched us bump up against limits all over the world, when the accepted view was that we would never reach those limits, I think you are being deliberately naive. Not sure why, but that is your choice.
I have seen too many instances where we felt there was a far bigger capacity for the planet to cope than there turned out to be, I think my assessment, albeit to a certain extent, subjective, is a far more realistic one than yours.
As far as the burden of proof here, there is only one way I can conclusively prove to you that you are wrong.Well, it's not exactly my backside. From the Wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power ), the approximate amount of energy our planet absobes from the Sun is 3,850,000 EJ per year. Humanity consumes about 487 EJ in all forms, including fossil fuels. Do your math, and you will see that the total energy use by humanity is a whopping 0.013% of the energy our planet absorbes from the Sun. Sorry, I rounded it down to 0.01%.
I hoped you could do better...Really? There is only one way to conclusively prove it.
Which I guess means you do not understand what that means.....
So sorry - you also seem to think that it is merely a matter of energy consumption. I guess you did not read any of the other information or links I and others left either.
You have already decided
A leap of faith no less.......OK, I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Rather than being deliberately obtuse, you are just being lazy.
It is easier for you to say, well, if it is just a matter of energy consumption, we have another 98.87% to go before we catch up with th sun's energy output, therefore we are fine. It will be ages before we get there
Of course, you are somehow missing the point, but still.....
This is how it works -
Greenhouse gases are a vital part of keeping the sun's radiation inside our biosphere. Many of these are naturally occurring gases (but not all) and they include but are not limited to:
water vapor
carbon dioxide
methane
nitrous oxide
ozone
nitrous oxide
sulfur hexafluoride
hydrofluorocarbons
perfluorocarbons
chlorofluorocarbons
synthetic halocarbons
These gases absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range, and serve to keep the planet warm. This is a simplistic way of looking at it -
Basically, greenhouse gases allow radiation to heat the earth by trapping that heat within the atmosphere.
Concentrations of naturally occurring gases have been almost constant through the pre-industrial holocene. And I know you are a big fan of wikipedia, so this is the graph proving this -
The obvious conclusion from this is that any temperature changes we have been able to measure in the past, were in no way related to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Since about 1800, man has begun to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Anthropogenic gases are increasing, and have overtaken the planet's natural ability to disperse them through natural sinks. We have reached a limit.
The main sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are :
burning fossil fuels
deforestation
livestock enteric fermentation and manure management
use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in refrigeration systems
use of CFCs and halons in fire suppression systems and manufacturing processes.
agricultural activities
CO2 sources -
Solid fuels (e.g. coal): 35%
Liquid fuels (e.g. gasoline): 36%
Gaseous fuels (e.g. natural gas): 20%
Flaring gas industrially and at wells: <1%
Cement production: 3%
Non-fuel hydrocarbons: <1%
The "international bunkers" of shipping and air transport 4%
Water vapor is interesting, because the warmer the planet becomes, the greater concentration it is possible to hold in the atmosphere. So, whilst we are not producing any water vapor, by producing all the others we are contributing to the amount of vapor indirectly.
So, by outputting greenhouse gases, we are affecting the amount of energy radiated or kept within the biospere.
Nothing to do with the amount of energy we consume. More about how we produce it. This is a graph showing where those gases are emitted per capita
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … a_2000.svg
This is what is causing the earth to warm up at this time. Not a natural cycle.
- Leta Sposted 15 years ago0
TMG-
You make some good points. I like how you think--that's why I became your fan!
Warren Buffett also supports broad population control as one of his only personal charities (of course he gives mega money to others who deal with other things, such as the Gates Foundation). Interestingly, he is one of a few liberal-leaning truly wealthy. Soros is another. They both supported Obama (Soros, I believe, in more ways than we 'mortals' may know). Very interesting....
I think though, in regards to your comments, one has to be careful to get toooo cynical,and too much about conspiracy. Last time I checked, everyone puts on pants the same way, and everybody has gotta die-- Meaning, we are ALL too human--that includes the wealthy, 'ruling,' power class. And human institutions have come about as the result of many human drives--not all of them are about control or wealth.
I do agree that one of the control mechanisms of those interested in power is to drive controversy among the ants... I started to talk to Misha about the conflict in the former USSR between Georgia and Russia--absolutely that is about the powers of be driving ethnic conflict and stoking nationalist sentiment--ancient nationalist sentiment. The Georgians (and if this makes it better--less seemingly biased--my ex was Georgian) are too blinded with the old fact that they've had to fight off umpteen invaders of their country over centuries, and the promises of conservative actors in the west (McCain) to 'help' them in some old school war mongering way against the 'evil empire.' Thank God (or the noodle monster--or whatever you conceive God to be or not be--I have no issue w/ that--ANOTHER stoked point of contention among us... As long as you're intelligent, you are OK with me.) he never made it to office, or absolutely I believe we'd all be dead sooner rather than later.
The dialectic method, however, I believe is how we as a species achieved anything (I am one who believes words ARE thoughts)--so it cannot be discounted, even if perhaps it is a slow process. Hate to sound elitist, but I keep my discussion to those I think can handle it, and who make real contributions. Others-- Wish them well personally, but I don't have the energy.
Sufi-
I'd like to know what you know/think of geosynchronous reflectors, as I perceive you to be our resident 'real scientist.'
Nick-
You created a good thing! Much more useful/interesting, in the long run, than attracting bimbo-ettes. I sure hope you don't live in such a cartoon universe and are doing some marketing here. (Why waste a good English degree????!) Mark, quick question, so I can prepare a better reply to you
How exactly do you think fossil fuels burning affects global temps? What is the mechanism of this influence? I re-read your posts from the start, and my understanding is you think that the heat produced by burning directly affects global temps, right? We are just literaly heating the Earth, adding to what it receives from the Sun, right? Like in your example with a car in a garage? Thanks.
PS, Oh, btw I forgot to tell you I don't buy fries in McDonalds anymoreGood.
No, that is not the mechanism. I will reply after you have answered my questions.
And the point with the car was that you would not lock yourself in an enclosed space and leave your car running.
Why not?Oh Milla, you old hag! I love you. You must be messing around with Mark to say something like that, right?
You know that the "blanket" of soot from, let's see the dinorsaurs (just to be simple) from the "meteor" or "volcano" (which ever theory tickles your fancy) sent all the sediment up in the air as well as all the carbon (mostly invisable) into the air, sheilding the Earth from the sun, which is what created the ice age and the next era.
The same with burning fuel. The temperature of the literal burning is so slight and disapates, like cigarette smoking outside. It is concentrated at first but then it splits up until you can't see it anymore, but it didn't disapears. This is logic I am sure you can understand.
The same happens with burning wood, or fossible fuels or when a cow poops. The gases and sedements get trapped. They are concentrated for a little while until they are evenly distributed, like the cigarette.
What you, I think, don't understand is that the natural way of the Earth has been altered and the addition of human consumption has slowed down the rate of disapation. Thus this "invisable" blanket is trapping the heat on the Earth.
So another stupid Sandy annalogy is this. When you wrap yourself up in a sheet when you go to bed, you are able to trap some of the heat, and the fine holes in the threads is enough to let some of the heat go so you don't get too hot.
Now toss on another blanket, it starts to become hotter so you have to remove one of the blankets to get some relief etc... now, if you do pay attention to the less obvious details, you would have noticed that when you remove the sheet, your body temperate adjust pertty fast to it's normal temperature. (superficial)
But when you are using a thick blanket, when you remove the sheets you body feels a sudden shock, (the cold) and it takes your body a little bit longer to adjust. (while not internal body temperature, but superficial body temp.)
So in this annalogy, pretend you are the Earth and the "greenhouse gases" is the blanket.Hi sis, love ya too
Go re-read Marks posts, and you will see that he was trying to sell us that burning fossil fuels literally heats the Earth
And your analogies are not stupid at all sis, the blanket one is perfect - the question is how thick exactly this second blanket is? And, if it even thick enough to make a difference, will your body heat itself to the self-ignition point, or some natural regulation mechnism will prevent it from that?
"Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart.
Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head."
Georges ClemenceauStill 5 years to go, then.
I have been a little busy, so have just had a skim through.
Lita - Thanks for the vote of confidence - I have a feeling that ngureco knows a lot about the subject, too.
I read a little about geosynchronous mirrors in New Scientist, a few years ago, but not much since. If TMG is happy with the engineering side, then that is good enough for me. Whether it would work - I will need to dig out some information!
TMG - I did not climb anywhere near as high, but saw enough cynicism and lies in the retail industry to turn away. After being stabbed in the back again, it was time to follow the dream of a new life in the mountains. Hope the Mexico thing works out for you. Not quite so sure about the arguing thing - I love a good debate, although I am probably absorbing the Greek mentality. On that note, the recent unrest here supports your point about how governments/business fear a united population. This is not going to go away any time soon.
Milla - Asking for a quick explanation of the exact processes behind global warming is difficult - I may attempt a hub, when I have some time, but pretty busy for the next few days.
Good idea - the Greeks regularly hug their olive trees, believing that it gives them a better crop. It stems back to the Ancient Greek belief that each tree contained a beautiful female dryad spirit. Maybe you should try it - it might be the nearest you get to hugging a woman outside of your imagination.
- Leta Sposted 15 years ago0
TMG
I hear you, I hear you.... What is a little funny about Hubpage forums is that people assume certain things about people just based on (?) prototypes they've encountered or something (?) IE, socialism, religiosity, etc. It's a little silly--and that IS part of what is keeping people unfree (because that is what we are talking about at the heart of it, yes?)
I believe we are actually about the same age, for one--I may be a little older than you. So the uncynical young women thing doesn't wash, lol! (BTW, you are not that OLD, omg) Furthermore, can't say I define myself as a socialist (although I do see some good in that 'ism')--I read a lot of Chomsky (a very aware but uncynical intellectual-I highly recommend his writing because he also thinks way outside the box and can back everything up with the thoroughness of a scholar) and probably best describe my beliefs as aligning to his. In short--yeah, I know how things 'work'. I've been through quite a few episodes in my own experience where I got the picture quite clearly (try the advertising world in NYC after 9/11.) I've also been through quite a few episodes where I saw light. So I wanna say that I hope I come from a somewhat enlightened and not naive perspective... I believe being far too cynical is a crutch or a delusion in itself (another hubber I recommend reading--especially his comments--is vitaeb. He has a very succinct way of expressing himself concerning dualisms.)
So, what, you were a Brigadier General when in the army? My partner (older than you--he built Gitmo) was in for 10 years, and also walked away... There are many who know money in servitude ain't freedom. He owns his own company now....and suffice it to say, we've gone through here what I think most would deem the eye of corruption...and come out the other side. Trust me, he was overly cynical too with good reason.
Just the fact that YOU are still around and still offering to help good and 'small' people is proof in itself that hope exists. 
hahaa!
No matter what ones opinions are, generally speaking, I believe we are in trouble. If we do nothing, we will (as a species) suffer. If we take any (drastic) action, many will suffer. The human population is reaching unsustainability, with current trends continuing.
There is a solution, but (He) does not beling in this forum (by popular complaint).Yeah, this would be a major hijacking of the thread.
Please try and keep your ridiculous beliefs up one forum
Thank you.Start a new thread in the appropriate forum and I will join in. I have all sorts of theories
Where? Arts?Entertainment? Business,perhaps? They each seem appropriate in one way or another.
Ah, Politics?Maybe we should ask for a new forum -
"Conspiracy Theories."
Probably be the most popular one yet
I am of the 'belief' that for a species blessed with free-will, the Spag. Monster or Allah or Jehovah or whoever, will help those who help themselves.
@ Milla.
Watch out.
Methinks Mr. Knowles is trying to chat you up.
Eric G.
@Lita,
Yes my sister, the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has the answer to everything.
Ramen.
@everyone quoting Wikipedia to back up their arguments:
It's dangerous to treat it as an authoritative reference.
@ everyone else:
skimming through all this made my brain hurt.
Especially the long, long slabs of quoted text with a line or two at the bottom which was the comment.
In the interests of conservation of electrons, please don't requote the entire post.
And yes, there is a shortage of electrons in the world.
Really.
I read it on Wikipedia.
Cheers,
Eric G.Aww, thank you Eric, I will not let him
Thank you Mr Knowles, finally you managed to put together a more or less coherent post! I would just ignore the previous one, OK? I drafted a responce to it, but it lost its actuality already
So, let's see what you got there as a conclusive evidence of catastrophic global warming.
If anybody is being lazy on this thread, it is not me Mr Knowles, this is an unjust judgement.
Not sure where you get this 98.87% number. It is rather 99.987%. Typo? Probably. But rather coincidentally makes us specs of dust feel about 100 times more important. And gives us 100 times less time to fix our problems, too. Sense of URGENCY, I understand. Did you come here from marketing? MLM even may be? They love that kind of stuff
I will just ignore that, like all your other obvious attempts to push my buttons. Just wanted to let you know that I see them and appreciate them for what they are
Nice pic Mr Knowles. Not terribly accurate though, because one arrow is missing. I took a liberty to edit this pic a bit to better resemble the real process. Take a look.
Arrow #5 represents about 30% of solar radiation our planet reflects, before absorbing.
Now, I wouldn't say that gases main servitude is to keep the planet warm. I would agrue their main purpose in that sense is to keep the temps more uniform during day/night cycles. Without them our days would have been way hotter, and nights unbearably colder. To the point that life would not have been possible at all. They reflect a part of energy up into the space during the day, and down to the Earth during the night. I think such a description gives better understanding of their role.
No, I am not a big fan of wiki, but it has its uses. You use it legitimately. Now, did you make another set of typos?
The chart you are displaying clearly shows CO2 NOT being constant throughout this time period. Unless your definition of almost constant includes 40% variations. Also, the chart clearly indicated that there is a correlation between CO2 and temps. So, I am at a loss - what were you trying to say here exactly?
This is a statement. Where is the proof of hitting the limit?
You forgot one source though - human breathing
Can you enlighten me, does water vapors reflecting capacity depend on absolute or relative humidity? And yes, we are producing water vapors - in our breath.
Hard to agrue with that one. Just not sure how much a spec of dust can affect it.
Umm, nice pic, but what exactly it is supposed to illustrate? That Canada puts up more crap per capita than USA?
Sorry Mr Knowles, you did not prove anything. You need to try harder if you want to convert me to your religion. I know you can - remember fries?
Like I said, there is only one way to prove it conclusively. Don't worry, we will get there. Not likely to be in our lifetimes, but we will get there......
But happy polluting Wouldn't like you to have to give up any more than McDonald's fries now would we.
As to your other point about doing what you are told
You are doing what you have been told to do right now -
Consume, consume, consume. And fight for your right to do soShould I understand this rant as Mr Knowles himself does not consume? He is always naked, lives in the ground hole and eats insects that he can catch, and an occasional rabbit, right?
I am just wondering how he is getting access to the Internet, though
Still, it seems he does pollute despite his best effort. Producing CO2 24/7, coupled with water vapor and occasional burst of methan
When I get to ranting you will know...... I usually reach for that when meaningful dialog, scientific facts and reasonable arguments have failed. Of course I consume. But I try and limit that consumption.
I even persuaded a friend to stop eating McDonald's french fries once.Oh yeah, I can confirm
And Sandy is right - I love your pics guys!
- sandra rinckposted 15 years ago0
Whatever! Praise tree huggers and global warming cautioneers because there more people there are who can hear a good cautionary call are the ones who will enevitably make it possible for those of you who seem to take it all for granted.
Cheers! Socialist propaganda, yes it is. Milla, just keep telling yourself whatever you want to so that you may never feel guilty. Your right, it is not your fault, it's the global warming conspirators who are making life hard right now.
Sometimes you ignorance does really get on my nerves and all this time I thought you were so zen and smart but now I am realizing that you are just like them.I love you, Sis
Ouch, retract your claws for a moment. You praise zen then bash opinion, however slanted. Please remember we are here to discuss, not belittle.
I think the only grudge being held here by the "socialists" is the word propaganda. It has such a dirty stigma that is hard to overcome. Personally, as unbiased as I am <insert cruel chuckle here> I would imagine that any "socialist" willing to fight for their cause would be proud of their position on this issue. Instead, I see a lot of defensiveness on either side.
Though we are not all friends here, we can at least be civil antagonists
Green party FTW
ScottJust wanted to say Milla is my good friend, we talk to each other like that all the time.
It's our thing.A little defensive, perhaps, but a lot of the problem is the definition of the word Socialist, which makes me wary of getting into a debate about the subject.
If a European asks me if I am Socialist, then yes, because it means left of centre. I believe that some basic human rights, such as healthcare, education and water should be funded through taxation and nationalisation. No more, no less.
If an American asks, I say no, because they seem to assume that I want to take over the world with Marxist ideology and eat babies. Only a perception based upon a few observations, but when Obama is called a Socialist as an insult, most Europeans scratch their heads. To most of us, he would be classed as right of centre, like Clinton.
I want to look at GW scientifically rather than rant about political beliefs. Divided by a common language and all that.
Therein lies the problem - Everybody knows what the Greens stand for, but Socialism is unclear.
- Leta Sposted 15 years ago0
- Leta Sposted 15 years ago0
Thanks for that
I think the good portion of Mark's - ummm - drive was because he thought I did
And I don't mind him winning the fight at all - if he brings a conclusive proof to the table, I am all his...
Anyway, night everybody.
Hi Sufi
Here is my reply, finally.
Aww, thanks!
Then I am safe
Here is the first question - how can one say that the long term model is good? Long term model needs long term to be tested, right? Did anybody test global warming model on a real life catastrophic global warming? Obviously not.
Erring on the side of caution is good when your resources are unrestricted. When they are limited, you have to pick and choose, and this is how we operate. So no, I don't buy erring on the side of caution. Spending resources on confirmed targets is more beneficial in the long run.
Definitely not always. Going green makes a lot of other senses, but rarely makes economic sense - otherwise everybody would have been dark green by now
No, not conspiracy, I don't buy those. Just marketing, exactly the one you mentioned yourselfHi Milla,
Going to try and avoid using too many quotes!
Which is why we are arguing - if catastrophic global warming had occurred, then the debate is moot! Models are not perfect, which is why I am always careful never to say 'definitely' or 'truth.' However, we use models for predicting weather, and they are pretty good. The problem, as you say, is that politicians have messed things up. Long before the propaganda started, the Scandinavian countries and Germany quietly went about installing green technologies. Recycling and renewable energy are all profitable there, so there is economic potential in green products. As you say, it is about targeting resources, and the Prius is an example of marketing power masquerading as environmental technology. Now that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, who knows which way things will go? Advertising, not science, is the problem. When I see Exxon producing booklets about how green they are, there is something wrong.
For example, the World Bank and IMF have a habit of going for the 'Big' projects. They give developing countries millions to build big dams; a fraction of that money would give home-owners the means to generate their own electricity and heat water. The problem is mixing macro and micro economics - the local fish-farmer built himself a water wheel, and saves hundreds of Euros in electricity. On a micro-scale, there is sense in turning green. On a macro-scale, there is too much greed and corruption, so whatever happens, the few will be making money. Sideshow Bob, initially, claimed that Global Warming was Socialist propaganda - the evidence seems to show the opposite, and that big business is forcing change.
Anyway, hope that makes senseHi Sufi,
Sure it does I think we are pretty much on the same page with you. Except that I'm not too familiar with the World Bank/IMF, but I can ask Misha, he worked there.
- Leta Sposted 15 years ago0
That was the plan Lita
Well done Milla,
Nice Shootin'
It's good for Mark to get slapped down like a dunny seat once in a while.
But the neighbourhood cats are gunna be in for a kicking methinks. Never did like cats, they produce too much methane ......
LOL Guys, you cracked me up really
Nice fight, I always enjoy a good argument Nice avatar Misha
I now have a horrible image in my mind that I cannot get rid of
Don't knock it 'till you've tried it
- sandra rinckposted 15 years ago0
OMG!!!! Nice pics boys! rotflmfao.
- CRANTELListheNAMEposted 15 years ago0
Related Discussions
- 72
Do you believe in global warming?
Do you believe in global warming?Do you think the numbers are falsified?
- 136
Do You Believe Humans Caused the Climate Change?
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is the website - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … -activity.
- 42
Global Warming and its effects.
Do you believe global warming is causing the extreme weather conditions we are experiencing in the U.S? Please watch this video and then comment.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7EHvfaY8Zs
- 30
Do you believe that Global Warming is just a swindle?
Do you believe that Global Warming is just a swindle?
- 166
Does Global Warming or Climate Change Really Exist?
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.
- 22
Do you think that there's something to the greenhouse effect and global warming?
Do you think that there's something to the greenhouse effect and global warming?The main reason I'm asking this question is down in the South we normally start wearing winter coats in the month of September, and we stop wearing our coats sometime in the month of April. However this past year we...