The Sky Is Falling...?

Pages

AuthorTopic: The Sky Is Falling...?
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
Profile Homepage #50
The conclusions that I have drawn from global warming data have left me in the "warming/cooling cycles" camp.

Do I think that human contributions to greenhouse gasses are a factor in the mean global temperature at all? I don't know, though I will not disallow the possiblity; there is not enough conclusive evidence in either direction yet. Come back in half a century, and we'll see. And even then, the global warming craze will have effected the results.
Do I think that CO2 levels have anything to do with it? Not really. But again, see previous question.
Do I think that many people (even here) are overreacting, demonstrating a total lack of objectivity on both ends of the spectrum, and are becoming a bit too hostile for any progress to be made for the betterment of all? Yes.

Do I think that something should be done? Well, I'm all for trying to preclude a problem. Of course, I like the fact that all of the energy-efficient stuff that I try to participate in does more than preclude a potential threat to the environment: I'm one of those fools who is currently looking ahead to the day when our fossil fuels will run out. Whether CO2 or H2Og has anything to with messing with the atmosphere, one still has to consider that one of the most basic elements of our way of life is mostly based on a form of resource that is both expensive and finite: the fossil fuels that are used to generate our electricity.
Frankly, I look forward to a day when none of our power comes from creating steam to push a turbine, or burning gas to push a piston. I wish people would stop politicking and get down to finding out what actually works.

I'm rather surprised that this little gem hasn't been brought up yet. I personally like his conclusions, especially those stating that lying about the situation to make some people act doesn't help the situation in the long run. It's a good read, despite any views on global warming (he does make an attempt to strike at both sides, though it ends up being skewed a bit farther right than many of our more vocal members might like. [/random ad]

--------------------
The Silent Assassin would like to add that in honor of this thread, he will cease using whipped cream grenades for a week.
He'll use the rocket-powered pie launcher instead.

--------------------
-Lenar Labs
What's Your Destiny?

Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable.

All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure.
Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #51
Bringing up a novel, which is definitely written to create profit for the author, does nothing to advance your argument. I read the book, found it somewhat entertaining, but was glad that it was a gift rather than a product of my purchasing power.

--------------------
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 # 6292
Profile #52
quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

Synergy, you amaze me. You just completely switched the topic, didn't you.
How's that? I started out saying I didn't have much to say on the issue. I posted some of the main points from the book I read recently, which I no longer have on hand. I followed up with some relevant general comments on how I and we ultimately choose to place our faith in someone somewhere as being more correct than someone else. That point is relevant to nearly any controversial topic you can think of.

My post was ultimately a poll. I don't have a lot to say in way of debate because I am not well-versed enough in the topic to argue its many fine points ad nauseum—and for me, it would induce nausea. The general counterpoint to popular belief on the matter is what I wanted to put out. Anyone stimulated to entertain the possibility of another convenient or inconvenienet truth is free to read for themselves into the many nuts and bolts of the matter. This is a foolish environment in which to hope to prove or disprove weighty matters to anyone's satisfaction. It takes a lot more than anyone is able to put forth here. And besides, as I was just saying, it ultimately comes down to belief and faith in someone's point of view and veracity, rather than absolute proof in the true sense.

I have heard no one address the not unremarkable coincidence that other planets in our solar system have also in recent years been heating up, most observably, our neighbor Mars. If something is heating up and stirring up the other planets in our system, isn't it rather likely that same agency would be affecting ours similarly at the same time? It pretty much leaves the Sun as the only possibility, if it is not coincidental. That said, this too is all uncertain and controversial.

-S-

[ Thursday, August 16, 2007 22:32: 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 #53
Aliens?

Dr No?

NASA?

There must be some logical explanation for temperature increases on other planets.

..
...

I know! The US government outsourced data collection and the low-ball contractor doesn't actually collect data. They do it the smart way, just make it up!

--------------------
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
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #54
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

I have heard no one address the not unremarkable coincidence that other planets in our solar system have also in recent years been heating up, most observably, our neighbor Mars.
I'm calling your bluff: show us the numbers. In particular, show us numbers from within the past two decades.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #55
Planetary Warming warming may very well exist. However, one should be careful not to assume that all the causes are the same...

[ Tuesday, August 21, 2007 03:27: Message edited by: Lt. Sullust ]

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #56
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Sarcasmon:

[If you have evenly balanced scales... and add even the tiniest amount... 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.
To elaborate a little further, it is not very hard to calculate that the average surface temperature of the Earth would be around 254 Kelvin (that's -19 Celsius, which is well below freezing) without the greenhouse effect. The average surface temperature of the Earth is actually nearer to 288 Kelvin (15 Celsius, well above freezing). That's a 34 degree swing primarily due to the greenhouse effect.

If this were a linear relationship (which it's not — it's more like an exponential), adding only 3% to the greenhouse effect would still increase the temperature a degree or so. A degree may not be too much cause for concern, but even ten degrees would be catastrophic (Americans, remember that a ten degree change in Celsius is almost twenty degrees in Fahrenheit), and our rates of putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are not decreasing; they're increasing exponentially.

The climate change that we saw in the twentieth century was pretty minor, but that's not what might happen in the twenty-first if we don't at least slow our increase of rates of dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

--------------------
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 #57
Yeah, but didn't we already determine the the human contribution to greenhouse gases is only a tenth of a percent? This global warming thing is beginning to look more and more overblown. I'm pro clean planet, but anti sensational claims.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #58
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Yeah, but didn't we already determine the the human contribution to greenhouse gases is only a tenth of a percent?
Making poorly-sourced claims is not the same as determining something.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #59
Thuryl, if everyone here agreed on that, we wouldn't have these insipid debates.

'Course, a man can dream...

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Making poorly-sourced claims is not the same as determining something."
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #60
EDIT: Eh, not worth it.

[ Friday, August 17, 2007 19:37: 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
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #61
Is human respiration considered a natural or man-made cause to the contribution?

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #62
Here's a quote from some another online forum on the topic:

"humans contribute approximately 6.5 gigatons CO2 annually to the atmosphere; dead and rotting plants and animals contribute about 150 gigatons annually; and the oceans contribute magnitudes more. I won’t even go into animals and the methane they produce. Whew!

The human contribution percentage is in the low single digits, yet we are responsible for the warming? How does that work?

Not to mention that roughly 80 percent of the warming experienced in the 20th century occured prior to 1940, followed by a 35 year cooling period, followed by further modest warming. The warming in the 20th century was roughly .7 degree C. During the entire period the CO2 concentrations were also increasing modestly. There seems to be a loose association but as we all know, logically, that does not imply causation necessarily.

Virtually all of these predictions are based on computer models. We do not currently understand the physics of how clouds work. We must “assume” cloud functions in the models. Anyone see a problem here? Is it just that I’m placing too much emphasis on clouds? After all, how could they possibly effect the climate?

I’ll cite Al Gore’s AIT quotation from Mark Twain: “It isn’t what you don’t know that’s the problem. It’s what you’re sure of that just ain’t so.” Anyone see the irony?"

...

I think clouds and water vapor are the loose cannon on deck in the mix of the matter. They are a huge factor, yet the least well pinned down, and the most assumed. I don't trust computer models for something as giant and complex as global climate in a heartbeat. They still can't predict weather all that reliably on the local scale over five days, but the global warming proponents gladly surrender their faith to climate models devised to make global predictions over decades? I find that laughable. Blind faith is alive and well in the age of science.

Our conceit and downfall is to place our trust in our machines to reliably predict and control our future—simply another religion/faith parallel in science that no one whose god is science is ever willing to concede. We may not have high priests telling us what's coming by looking at animal guts today, but we do have the sophisticated, sterile modern equivalent: computers and scientists. As amazing as they are, it should go without saying that they are far more prone to be wrong than right most of the time.

To place your faith in climate models as truth is essentially the same as living in fear of the prophecies of Revelation. This earth has been through untold dynamic change in the past. It is marvelously balanced to correct and maintain itself with feedback cycles. I may not understand them all, but I understand the principle and I believe in it. I trust in it.

I'm more concerned how we are poisoning our environments and bodies on an immediate level. I am disgusted that we have indulged a century and counting on an ancient, inefficient technology—the internal combustion engine, when computers have advance light years in half as much time. We should be doing better and being better stewards at this point. We could avoid much pollution, wars, and ugly city skylines among other things.

I said it before and I'll say it again. All people are relgious, because we need to believe in something/someone else to feel safe in this world. Whether one has any conscious awareness of this need is entirely independent of its reality. To face a true existential crisis, in which you finally come face to face with what you have hidden behind and protected yourself in life, to come to the place where you can question and put aside anything and everything others have handed you and realize you alone are ultimately responsible to make meaning for your own life, is in a way, where life begins.

Don't believe the hype. There is no shortage of people in all camps who seem to love having you be afraid. Fear is a crippler and a killer. We've got serious challenges facing us this century. I think we are going to hash very messily through them, suffer a lot because of them, and survive and emerge all the better as a result. It's a fascinating time to be alive.

-S-

--------------------
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 #63
Scientists also have a poor record with predicting earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. You know, just like Mt St Helens, right?

Bleagh...

Could you cite that quote? I'm curious about the rest of the claptrap being spouted.

[ Saturday, August 18, 2007 08:03: Message edited by: Jumpin' Sarcasmon ]

--------------------
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 #64
From the first citation in the Wikipedia article on "Global Warming" (that is, the IPCC report):
quote:
Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM-2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 – 2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates.
Basic point: CO2 levels are very high now, higher than they have been at any point in the recent geologic past. They continue to grow.
quote:
The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8] GtC (23.5 [22.0 to 25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s, to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5] GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per year in 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 [0.5 to 2.7] GtC (5.9 [1.8 to 9.9] GtCO2) per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty.
Basically, burning fossil fuels is the biggest source of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and deforestation is the next. Chapter 2 of the IPCC's full report (available from their website) gives, starting on page 7 of the chapter, a conceptual overview of how this works, and Chapter 9, starting on page 9 of the chapter, gives numbers (in summary of Chapter 2).
EDIT: For some reason, UBB won't include the third quote. Basically, the quote says, It's not the sun. It's not some natural process. It's us.

As for whether there is a scientific consensus, from another page from the usual source: "A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[8] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.""

[ Saturday, August 18, 2007 09:57: 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 # 6403
Profile #65
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

adding only 3% to the greenhouse effect would still increase the temperature a degree or so. A degree may not be too much cause for concern, but even ten degrees would be catastrophic (Americans, remember that a ten degree change in Celsius is almost twenty degrees in Fahrenheit), and our rates of putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are not decreasing; they're increasing exponentially.
To quote Augie Auer (all rounded to the nearest thousandth), human related CO2: 0.115%, methane: 0.066%, nitrogen dioxide: 0.047%, CMCs: 0.046%. Added all together, 0.274%

So yes, maybe 3% may cause a 1 degree centigrade shift, but this is, all told, a quarter of a degree. Like I said, negligible.

Also, did none of you read my links? If so, here it is again. To get to the gist of it,
quote:
Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.
Like I said, not up, plateauing. Also, to those of you who are providing wiki links, they are of no meaning, much less consequence. Unless you are looking up a proper or otherwise easily proven noun, etc. it is not a source.

Thank you for the welcome, Salmon. :D
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #66
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

To quote Augie Auer
You're quoting one person. I'm quoting the document which summarizes overwhelming scientific consensus. Hmm.

quote:
Also, to those of you who are providing wiki links, they are of no meaning, much less consequence. Unless you are looking up a proper or otherwise easily proven noun, etc. it is not a source.
Although I am providing Wikipedia links, you'll notice that your comment isn't actually relevant to me. Please try to direct your comments more specifically and accurately in the future.

--------------------
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
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #67
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

This earth has been through untold dynamic change in the past. It is marvelously balanced to correct and maintain itself with feedback cycles.
Again... yes, the planet tends to regulate itself one way or another, but sometimes those corrections involve a mass extinction. We might not live through one of those.

Other than that, I'm seeing your point(s), and just unsure that I can agree with it.

--------------------
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
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #68
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Also, to those of you who are providing wiki links, they are of no meaning, much less consequence. Unless you are looking up a proper or otherwise easily proven noun, etc. it is not a source.
Although I am providing Wikipedia links, you'll notice that your comment isn't actually relevant to me. Please try to direct your comments more specifically and accurately in the future.

That's great, did I mention you specifically or "those of you who are providing wikipedia links"? please keep your comments on the topic at hand and try to not give a damn if a comment is not relevant to you.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #69
Can you feel it?

Can you?

Ahhhh.

Feel the love.

--------------------
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
Master
Member # 5977
Profile Homepage #70
I don't know if I feel the love, but I do feel a joy, reading Infernal's post, that makes me smile.

--------------------
Play and rate my scenarios:

Where the rivers meet
View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape.
Co-designed with Nikki: El Presidente.

Give us your drek!
Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #71
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

That's great, did I mention you specifically or "those of you who are providing wikipedia links"?
You addressed "those of you who are providing wiki links." I was providing Wikipedia links. If you weren't intending to address me (along with others), you should've been more specific.
quote:
Originally written by Thralni:

I don't know if I feel the love, but I do feel a joy, reading Infernal's post, that makes me smile.
You would think that, you gzipped tarball.

--------------------
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
Infiltrator
Member # 4826
Profile #72
Ouch.

--------------------
"Of course, not all technology is good. Some is exactly the opposite (bad)." — Dave Barry
Posts: 458 | Registered: Friday, August 6 2004 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #73
Synergy is right that clouds and water vapor are a large and fuzzy factor in climate modelling. People are working hard on this, but nonlinear partial differential equations are always brutal. And nucleation and evaporation of liquid droplets in air are not all that well understood fundamentally: there are no really good microscopic theories of any first order phase transitions.

On the other hand, it seems naive to me to put so much faith in an at least equally fuzzy theory about solar cycles. The possibility that rising temperatures may increase atmospheric CO2 levels is in no way reassuring. It is precisely the danger of global warming, that past a certain point the process might take on a self-reinforcing life of its own, and turn Earth into Venus. Can we really afford to just rely on the hope that the earth's Gaia-ish self-regulation will inevitably avoid this, and keep the climate livable?

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #74
I think the overwhelming concern amongst the Chicken Littles is that the "earth's Gaia-ish self-regulation" will inevitably correct the human species out of existence, or at least importance.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

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

Pages