The Sky Is Falling...?

Pages

AuthorTopic: The Sky Is Falling...?
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #25
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

The total human population of Earth has also been reduced to less than 10,000 several times in the past by fluctuations in global climate. Perhaps you would like to see that happen. Most people wouldn't.
It's okay, Thuryl. After the cataclysm, Captain Walker will come and take us survivors to Tomorrow Morrow Land.

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #26
I don’t know whether to go with Al Gore and his ‘ignorance oriented religious belief system’ or the ‘lunatic fringe greenhouse gas disbelievers.’ I think it’s unrealistic to think humans are incapable of affecting our planet on a global scale. I also know, as has been mentioned, that majority or popular scientific opinion doesn’t make a thing so. I read information about the Sun’s effect on climate change a while ago and since then I’m somewhere in the middle.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7

So I didn’t vote because you don’t have a dead center option. The last one “little interest or concern” is close, save the “interest” part as I’m very interested in what happens to our planet. I’m just not very concerned. Here’s why:

I think Zeviz’s approach has some merit – we have nothing to lose and everything to gain if we go to cleaner more efficient energy. At the same time I always try to take the latest fear-inspiring buzzwords with a grain of salt. There’s always something new to worry about and I refuse to get worked up about it anymore. If we need to go to solar, wind, electric or whatever, I’m all for it. I hate high gas prices and greedy oil companies. If the sun is the culprit and we can’t do anything about it, well…I don’t like wintertime that much anyway. It gets cold in Michigan.

Either way, humanity will live and adapt if we have to.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #27
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I think it’s unrealistic to think humans are incapable of affecting our planet on a global scale.
Ever seen a satellite picture of Earth at night? Look at all the lights and try to tell me we haven't affected the planet on a global scale.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #28
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I read information about the Sun’s effect on climate change a while ago and since then I’m somewhere in the middle.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7

That article lost me as soon as — well, it actually lost me as soon as it said, "Like Darwin's theory of evolution and Big Bang cosmology, global warming by greenhouse gas emissions has undergone that curious social process in which a scientific theory is promoted to a secular myth." Coming from an evolution-doubter, that article lost all credibility. But let's say that it didn't: then it would've lost me when it said, "As for warming caused by mankind's production of so-called 'greenhouse gases'" (emphasis mine).

Greenhouse gases really do cause a greenhouse effect. That's not disputed at all by anyone who has a grain of sense. I've done the calculation to find how hot the Earth would be without the greenhouse effect (not hard — I could do it here). I can tell you why the greenhouse effect occurs (it's pretty basic science). Terming them "so-called" greenhouse gases is absurd and stupid; they are greenhouse gases. The controversy is whether man-made greenhouse-gas emissions are contributing significantly to the greenhouse effect and thereby to global warming, not whether greenhouse gases actually cause a greenhouse effect at all.

Whether variations in the Sun contribute to global warming or not, I can't say. They may. But that article is a sham, and any supposedly scientific article that is stated so stridently and so derisively is immediately suspect.

[ Thursday, August 16, 2007 06:08: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #29
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Terming them "so-called" greenhouse gases is absurd and stupid; they are greenhouse gases.
You know, if I may play devil's advocate here, he might simply be using "so-called" to signify that greenhouse gases don't warm the earth by exactly the same mechanism that a greenhouse warms the air inside it.

Quoting H.P. Lovecraft doesn't exactly do wonders for his scientific credibility, though.

[ Thursday, August 16, 2007 06:27: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #30
Thuryl, I think the double negatives in my quote threw you. I agree.

-----

Kel, that site is not anti-evolution. It's about astronomy. In fact, what little it does comment on evolution is pro-Darwin from what I remember. The quote is regarding the effect a scientific theory can have on society, regardless of the veracity of the theory. And saying something is "so-called" does not mean the thing does not exist. In this case i think the writer was commenting on the bias inherent in calling gases "greenhouse." If you say "greenhouse gas" most people immediately think, "this gas is responsible for global warming." The point of the article is that it's the sun, not human activity. I don't agree or disagree, but I let's look at both sides honestly.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #31
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

You know, if I may play devil's advocate here, he might simply be using "so-called" to signify that greenhouse gases don't warm the earth by exactly the same mechanism that a greenhouse warms the air inside it.
That point is a far more reasonable one than any that the article actually makes. :P

At least, I imagine it is. I know how the greenhouse effect works, but I don't actually know how a greenhouse works. :P
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

In this case i think the writer was commenting on the bias inherent in calling gases "greenhouse." If you say "greenhouse gas" most people immediately think, "this gas is responsible for global warming."
That's just plain ridiculous. Greenhouse gases are called "greenhouse gases" because of the greenhouse effect, not because of global warming. Trying to avoid calling them "greenhouses gases" to avoid the connection with global warming represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term means.

You could complain about bias in a term if they were being called "global warming gases," but not if they're being called "greenhouse gases."

[ Thursday, August 16, 2007 06:40: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #32
thuryl beat me :mad:

Edit:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Trying to avoid calling them "greenhouses gases" to avoid the connection with global warming represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term means.

You could complain about bias in a term if they were being called "global warming gases," but not if they're being called "greenhouse gases."

Hmm, I'll grant that. Sometimes "so-called" simply refers to how a thing is designated though with no regard to the writers agreement. In fact, that is the primary usage of the word. So, your point would only be valid if the article was arguing against any greenhouse effect.

[ Thursday, August 16, 2007 07:02: Message edited by: Stillness ]
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #33
You know, I sometimes wonder whether anthropogenic global warming might seem more intuitively plausible if we routinely measured temperatures in kelvin instead of degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit.

[ Thursday, August 16, 2007 07:09: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #34
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Sometimes "so-called" simply refers to how a thing is designated though with no regard to the writers agreement. In fact, that is the primary usage of the word.
No, it's not.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 5545
Profile Homepage #35
I agree with Zeviz. Although I can't honestly say that I don't care whether global warming is caused by CO2 or not, the reality has no effect on my stance on emissions. The path to fighting global warming, as laid out by left wing politicians, has the benefit of encouraging cleaner, more efficient energy. If the environmentalists have to lie to get things done, that's politics. Nothing we haven't seen before.
I'm not a believer in the ends justifying the means, but if the means are the same as everyone else's, but the ends are superior, there must be some moral high ground there.

Edit:
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

You know, I sometimes wonder whether anthropogenic global warming might seem more intuitively plausible if we routinely measured temperatures in kelvin instead of degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit.
But when your talking about change, the intervals are all that matter. Since a degree is the same for both Celsius and Kelvin, only the truly ignorant would see any difference. Are those really the people you want on your side?

[ Thursday, August 16, 2007 07:30: Message edited by: Actaeon ]

--------------------
Plaudite, amici, comedia finita est.
Posts: 344 | Registered: Friday, February 25 2005 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #36
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Sometimes "so-called" simply refers to how a thing is designated though with no regard to the writers agreement. In fact, that is the primary usage of the word.
No, it's not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=so+called&x=0&y=0

so-called      /?so??k?ld/ –adjective

1.called or designated thus: the so-called Southern bloc.

2.incorrectly called or styled thus: so-called intellectuals.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 5545
Profile Homepage #37
[quote=Ephesos]
But big, big points for knowing that the salt content of the oceans has the potential to screw things up.
[/quote]An Inconvenient Truth covered that much.

--------------------
Plaudite, amici, comedia finita est.
Posts: 344 | Registered: Friday, February 25 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #38
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Sometimes "so-called" simply refers to how a thing is designated though with no regard to the writers agreement. In fact, that is the primary usage of the word.
No, it's not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=so+called&x=0&y=0

so-called /?so??k?ld/ –adjective

1.called or designated thus: the so-called Southern bloc.

2.incorrectly called or styled thus: so-called intellectuals.

This may be one of those geographic definitions. I've seen it used both ways, but not in the same locales. Also, it seems verbal emphasis lands on the "so" for definition 1, and the "called" for definition 2, both things that don't appear readily on the internit.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #39
This is all basically beside the point. That article is not trustworthy. Its extreme language is one pretty strong indication of that.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #40
Yes, identifying greenhouse gases as "greenhouse gases" is insane.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #41
Kelandon makes a point, that in one form or another I often attempt to make, but I take it a step further. I don't trust anyone, in the sense that I am going to cast my lot with them 100%, including the book I read which I used to put out many of the basic points at the start of this thread. Why? Because everyone human is fallible, subjective, has an agenda consciously and more likely, below their own awareness. I neither reject outright anyone, nor embrace them outright. I find most things in life to be mixture. Most people have some truth/fact, and some error. It's our job to decide what balance is acceptable and how to find the babies in the bathwater. I seek to extract the gems and leave the rest. When I was younger, I had an all or nothing approach to truth...someone was all right or all wrong. Is that ever the case?

I think it is human nature to want to always believe there is a higher authority and power around us we can admire, fear, or be fascinated by-whether it is God, a religious leader, a scientific authority, a king, a politician. Conspiracy theorists have their dangerous godlike nemeses. We want to trust someone else and believe in someone else bigger and better than us. This is why I always see science as no less religious in many ways as religion. At some point, we all have to surrender to putting our faith in someone. I don' t know for an absolute fact that we ever went to the moon, for instance, when it comes down to it. I have no reason to believe we did not, but it is a belief I have that it is true what they claim and show. We have to cast our lot with someone ultimately, and even scientists have to trust a whole lot of other scientists and authorities.

Evaluating the reliability of any institution, person, or source may require something more along the lines of intuition than any kind of absolute, certain measure. These are the issues that fascinate me and are often behind putting controversial matter into a topic. It is as interesting to me to see how and why we choose sides, as what the nuts and bolts of the sides are. All people are religious, as I define it, including the aetheist. We all do the same thing in some fashion.

I'm curious what makes people so ready to embrace theories of climate so readily, when it is an incredibly complex and difficult thing to grasp, and we have been very much wrong in the recent past. Anyone recall that up till the late 70's, the prediction and concern was the new ice age about to unfold? Science is probably more often wrong than right, yet it amazes me how quickly masses seem ready to embrace the latest noisy idea.

DNA theory is being radically revised in recent years with the new field of epigenetics, yet people religiously promoted certain views of DNA as accepted fact up until the weight of science and literature made it clear it needed some significant revision. Science and the masses, in my opinion, grossly lack foresight, hindsight, and humility in the process. We imagine we are somehow better, wiser, more objective today than we were yesterday, and that is the human conceit I think keeps putting pie on our faces, yet we so little acknowledge how wrong we have been when the shift comes.

And so it goes.

-S-

[ Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:14: Message edited by: Synergy ]

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #42
I still predict that after the next worldwide ice age there will be an explosion in human population.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #43
I've agreed with some of what you've said before while some is always questionable, but for the first time I think I'm in full harmony with every single word of your rant.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Warrior
Member # 7638
Profile #44
Originally written by Synergy:
quote:

An evident correlation can be plainly shown in graphs between average earth temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, this is true. What the CO2 alarmists bafflingly fail to point out or draw conclusions from is the simple clear fact that the increase in CO2 levels always follows the rise in temperature, not precedes it.
The difference now is that CO2 levels have not preceded the rise in temperature. So the question is, what happens when we dump several billion tons of carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere?

quote:
CO2 comprises less than one percent of the earth's atmosphere. The oceans alone, or even animals put vastly more CO2 into the atmosphere yearly than human activity ever has. Water vapor in the atmosphere has a much more dramatic greenhouse effect than CO2. Coronal mass ejections from the sun and the resulting radiation they bombard the earth with causes increased water vapor when it strikes the oceans's surface. Increased water vapor causes increased atmospheric temperature. At an increased temperature, less CO2 is able to stay dissolved in the oceans and emerges subsequently into the atmosphere. Thus, CO2 is seen to rise in proportion in the atmosphere when the earth gets warmer.
If you check this out, you will find that carbon dioxide causes between 9 and 26% of global warming. That's still a very large chunk of warming. That article also mentions that three quarters of elevated CO2 is caused by human activity and most of the rest by deforestation not by water evaporation.

[ Thursday, August 16, 2007 11:06: Message edited by: Leftover Sauerkraut ]

--------------------
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates, 1981
I stay warm the same way a walrus stays warm.

Stacy's Mom
Posts: 152 | Registered: Monday, November 6 2006 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #45
Synergy, you amaze me. You just completely switched the topic, didn't you.

I like how Zeviz basically rewrote Pascal's Wager for climate change... and I agree wholeheartedly with his analysis. Even though there are many, many scientific claims that support taking some sort of action (and I acknowledge the loaded-ness of the term scientific), that simple bit of logic really sums it up.

When you come right down to it, it doesn't matter who is right. And I agree with Synergy that every source of information has its biases and faults. The point is, stuff is happening, and we're not entirely sure what's causing it. It might be us, it might not. But either way, trying to do something, anything about it seems to be a prudent course of action.

So there. :P
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Sarcasmon:

I still predict that after the next worldwide ice age there will be an explosion in human population.
Well, yeah... after the massive die-back. :P

--------------------
TM: "I want BoA to grow. Evolve where the food ladder has rungs to be reached."

Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #46
quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

I like how Zeviz basically rewrote Pascal's Wager for climate change... and I agree wholeheartedly with his analysis.
It's not really Pascal's Wager; it's just a fairly standard risk-benefit analysis using the concepts of type I and type II error.

[ Thursday, August 16, 2007 13:54: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #47
How stupid, I forgot to check Spidweb (for about a month or two) before posting this on Nethergate:
quote:
According to Augie Auer, greenhouse gases are made up primarily by water vapor, and by primarily, I mean 95%. Carbon dioxide makes up 3.6%. Of that 3.6%, only 3.2% is man-made, now if you've done your geneforge armor calculation homework, you'd know that that means that humans have contributed 0.1152% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Man produced methane, nitrogen dioxide, and CFCs have similarly negligible values.NASA's data happens to be the data used by the civilized world to determine the annual average temperature. Seems they suffered from the Y2K bug, because, after a startlingly large gap was found in the data, starting January 2000, they recalculated the data. Guess what, 1998 ain't the hottest year ever anymore. That honor goes to 1934, hell, 2000-2004 are all behind 1900. In fact, the temperature has been progressively decreasing.


[ Thursday, August 16, 2007 16:19: Message edited by: radix malorum est cupiditas ]
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #48
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

...negligible values...
If you have evenly balanced scales (like those on the statue representing justice, if you are familiar with it) and add even the tiniest amount (aka negligible value,) you will find that the balance is now off. Some things can be quantified like you seem to think, and the equilibrium of the atmosphere and oceans is one of them.

Oh, welcome back! :D

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #49
Climate Myths?

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00

Pages