Global Warming - Page 10
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 319

Thread: Global Warming

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Albany NY
    Posts
    164

    Default

    GG, isn't it a bit odd to look at the average temp in one place at a particular date to "debunk" global warming or climate change? How have your average or extremes changed over time when including the whole year? Just cherry picking one date may be massaging the data.
    Of course I agree that for the last 10,000 or so years we have been experiencing global warming. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that what may be the worrisome part to some is the RATE at which the change is occuring. Obviously there are non human factors warming and cooling the planet. What if those factors would actually be cooling the planet now but due to human over consumption the trends still get warmer?
    Global temps have risen and fallen in the past. For much of that time the EARTH has existed without much opportunity for human life. It sounds like you are not concerned because the earth's temp can go up and down naturally. I think those people who look at the data are not so much concerned for the earth but for human existence thereon. To be sure, when the globe has warmed enough that humans (and much else) die off then we will no longer be contributing to climate change and if still possible the earth may cool again....
    If my use of oil contributes to wars and unrest in certain parts of the world, some of their suffering is because of me. If in future we are fighting over clean water instead of oil, and I waste or contaminate more than my share, then I am unfairly contributing to my neighbor's suffering. If my gluttonous consumption of the earth's resources contributes to California fires, I have a large debt. It is hard for me to imagine that priveleged, wealthy people (us Americans), would continue to exploit other's and then be surprised they don't like us. If I am so complacent in my own life, while maintaining innocence from having any affect on anything, I am naive indeed. And surely, it is for us in the privileged, wealthy part of the world to make the most and substantial changes. Because we have the means to. Expecting others to do more than we do, or to pave the way, is a sure fire way to loose our moral and technological advantage in the future. For the rest of the world we already have, we just don't believe in it yet. It is true, we don't have to care, but the longer it takes us to catch on the harder it will be. I think we will be better off starting now. If we are right we will continue to survive and maybe even thrive for centuries to come. And if we are wrong? Well then at least we won't have made it worse.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #182

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Amibusiness View Post
    GG, isn't it a bit odd to look at the average temp in one place at a particular date to "debunk" global warming or climate change? How have your average or extremes changed over time when including the whole year? Just cherry picking one date may be massaging the data.

    This is a classic.
    People cannot distinguish between weather and climate.

  4. #183

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Goose View Post
    Looking at the graph in a band for 1000s of years and way out of the band very recent, we either are all dead in 10 years or this data has been "massaged"
    I suppose you are willing to take the change.

  5. #184
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Bath, Maine, United States
    Posts
    2,473

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Goose View Post
    Again we all need to swing one way or the other, my choice is the "data does not compute" IMO climate change is the only Constant we can count on, with 2 or more Ice ages with out SUVs to blame it on we all know the climate can and does change with out humans "causing it".
    GG
    The earth does warm and cool without man. That is simply the backdrop to the question of the effect our burning fossil fuels. It seems as if it is offered as proof that man does have any effect.

    If your belief is burning fossil fuels has no effect I would advise not going into a garage and closing the door to prove that theory. The size of the garage simply changes the timing of the final result.
    It is not true that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
    They can learn them, they just can't do them.

  6. #185
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    809

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by GregV View Post
    Neet stuff concentrated Solar. Steel making was mentioned, With Steel making once the "process " is started it cannot stop every night, so the melting device would need some method to keep the temp up overnight. So electric maybe or something, to do the 6pm-7am work then maybe solar for the day. I was impressed billionaires are putting some funds to work for the betterment of others, VRS a bigger yacht.

  7. #186
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,487

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Goose View Post
    Neet stuff concentrated Solar. Steel making was mentioned, With Steel making once the "process " is started it cannot stop every night, so the melting device would need some method to keep the temp up overnight. So electric maybe or something, to do the 6pm-7am work then maybe solar for the day. I was impressed billionaires are putting some funds to work for the betterment of others, VRS a bigger yacht.
    Agreed, GG.
    Some billionaires do realize - one can not take their money to the grave with them when they die (which will happen 100%).
    Too bad, the other billionaires are still chasing each other - who has the biggest yacht or has bigger hands - for shame.
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  8. #187
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,922

    Default Re: Global Warming

    >If your belief is burning fossil fuels has no effect I would advise not going into a garage and closing the door to prove that theory. The size of the garage simply changes the timing of the final result.

    Every breath everyone takes has "an effect". The question is whether or not it is significant and whether or not it is offset by other things. All the plants on the planet are converting CO2 (which they cannot live without and which is a TRACE gas on this planet) into sugar, cellulose etc. and oxygen. So we are NOT in a garage with an overly simple system. We are on the earth which is a very complex system and a very HUGE system.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  9. #188
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Wakefield, Rhode Island, USA
    Posts
    197

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Micheal Bush "We are on the earth which is a very complex system and a very HUGE system." Musing along.........

    I agree with "very complex", "very HUGE" I am not so sure on a planetary scale. I call it more of a "thin fluidic film". A very thin fluid film with a boundary layer composed of a foot or two of dirt, lakes and oceans of water 4-5 miles deep (in places) and a very thin film of "air" with a useful thickness of 3-4 miles. This ecological system is about a ten mile thick thin film out of a working planetary spherical diameter of about 8,000 miles. The film is affected both by events inside the our living environment and from external sources. What is the tipping point in the life recycling equation? I would say we need to get smart, very smart, soon. I sure hope the fusion reactor being built works as desired!

  10. #189
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Albany NY
    Posts
    164

    Default

    MB, the earth has been in a relative equilibrium for several thousand years, with the carbon outbreath by volcanoes and animals / humans being offset by the plants converting it. Now we have succeeded in reducing the number of plants photosynthesising and increased the outbreathing to dangerous levels of choking is some places. I can't imagine that that equilibrium still holds now.
    I agree that the question is how much of an effect do we have and is it relevant. I agree that not all climate change is man made. I agree that maybe we will all be wiped out by a huge volcano or meteor. It seems like that has happened before. However, I can't imagine that someone would really look at the data and say we do not have a meaningful effect; that we are not responsible for part of it; that we do not need to mend our ways.
    The deforestation and dessertification are largely man made. The pollution and over fishing that causes the oceans to convert less co2 is largely man made. The high levels of air pollution that make so many people sick each year is largely man made. It looks like the evidence suggests we have an effect, it does not look good, we should act quickly and not wait for someone else to take the lead. Unless of course we prefer to be brainwashed by the people who make their billions with the status quo.
    Back in the garage, how many plants / trees would we need to have in the garage to make it safe to run a car in there? I don't know but it could be so many that the car no longer fits.....

  11. #190

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Interestingly, while I often think I have all the answers to the world's problems, this one I do not know the answer to.

    I understand that 97% of climate scientists agree... but I also understand that 98% of real estate agents agree this would be a good time to buy a house. What the two groups have in common is that their livelihood depends on the premise being accepted as true. So that argument is unconvincing.

    The theory itself has apparently failed in all of its predictions as nearly as I can tell. In the applied sciences, a theory lives for as long as it serves a useful purpose. The "strength of materials" approach to calculating stresses is used to design bridges, because it works if properly applied. If it gave the wrong answer, the bridges would collapse, and the theory would do the same.
    This requirement that theories actually provide the right answer is greatly relaxed or eliminated in most of what we call science. It doesn't matter if the theory is right or wrong, but it does matter if it gives an explanation which is satisfying.
    The theory of evolution is the best example of this (since we aren't using it to evolve things). For many people it provides pleasing answers to a lot of questions, and whether it works or not is actually irrelevant. I don't care what your view is on that theory, and won't tell you mine at the moment as it is not germane to the discussion. It merely serves as the best example of an explanatory theory.
    The AGW theory is somewhere between these two, in that we could take some actions which would test the theory, but we probably won't. However, we can look at several years of data to compare with the predictions from the theory. My understanding is that the theory does rather poorly at describing what has happened in the last 20 years, at least in a quantitative sense.

    The next thing which gives me pause is that the IPCC data shows a warming trend but that trend is not present in the raw data. The raw data shows no warming trend. To find the warming trend, the data from the past is modified, correcting unreliable data points. It is possible the people doing this are doing what they should, but being aware of the religious zeal of climate researchers, and that showing a trend of warming is necessary to their continued employment, I have very little confidence in anything based on the modified IPCC data. Even their name International Panel on Climate Change points to their supposition that climate change is a reality.

    This reminds me of an episode of "GET SMART" where CONTROL had been so effective in eliminating KAOS, that they were all being laid off, as they were no longer needed.

    The next thing that makes me skeptical is that the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere on an annual basis vastly outweighs the small amount humans contribute. We know this in a quantitative sense because of the nuclear test ban treaty. Leading up to the treaty, the prevalence of C14 in the atmosphere had almost exactly doubled over baseline. After the treaty, the amount of C14 above baseline decreased by half every 11 years. Since the half-life of C14 is about 5270 years, this effect is almost entirely due to dilution. What this means is that somewhere between 6% and 12% of the carbon in the atmosphere leaves the atmosphere every year, and is replaced by carbon from other sources. Apparently the carbon leaving is dissolved into the oceans to become fish bones, clamshells, and limestone. The carbon entering the atmosphere comes either from the biosphere (that would take 12%, since it is close to baseline C14 content) or from burning of "fossil" fuels and weathering of carbonaceous rock. (that would only require 6%, as it has essentially no C14). Since human activity contributes only about .5% new carbon going into the atmosphere, clearly it isn't the main thing going on. It seems to me likely that the increase in the size of the Sahara desert (exposing more soil and rock to weathering) might be a more significant contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric concentration than anything else. The other thing is that I haven't heard anyone who is a "believer" ever talk about the carbon cycle in a meaningful way. But clearly, it is central to the whole matter.

    The next thing that makes me skeptical is that the greenhouse analogy is a false analogy. A greenhouse consists of an inner atmosphere, an outer atmosphere, and a dielectric layer (glass) which tends to reflect low-energy photons (heat) while allowing higher energy photons (visible light) to pass through. The thing about this layer is that it works without regard to its temperature. There is nothing in the atmosphere which acts at all like such a layer does. I suppose that he people advancing this analogy are well enough educated to recognize that this analogy is false. So it seems to me that in using a false analogy, they are lying to people on the assumption that the people are ignorant and will believe them. What actually happens in the atmosphere is quite different. A low energy photon radiating from the surface is likely to be absorbed by a CO2 molecule This raises the temperature of the CO2 molecule, meaning it moves faster. It then collides with O2 and N2 molecules, transferring energy to them until they move a little faster. As a result, the average temperature of the atmosphere is increased slightly. Because it is warmer, it emits slightly more very low energy photons than it would otherwise, some of which eventually get back down to the surface. In that sense, it works pretty much like a thin blanket, though the heat transfer methods are different.

    From that, I observe that there isn't much evidence for the atmosphere warming (which would necessarily have to occur first) and also I tend not to trust people who lie to me for my own good.

    Finally, I see that the advocates for this theory are mostly using local weather to show changes in climate. For example, Venice is flooding, as it often does, due to poor urban planning. That is evidence of climate change. However, our summer was cooler than normal here in Wisconsin, that is weather.

    By observation, weather is when it is colder than normal. Climate is when it is warmer than normal.

    Examples of this abound. When the lake levels in the great lakes were declining, that was due to climate change. Now that lake levels are increasing, that is due to climate change. This is what is called "Confirmation bias". Humans have a tendency to see events as confirming that what they have decided is true is actually true.

    SO I am pretty skeptical, but I might be wrong. I just don't have any information reliable enough to draw a strong conclusion.
    Last edited by A Novice; 11-20-2019 at 12:38 PM.

  12. #191
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Albany NY
    Posts
    164

    Default

    I'm not sure the predictions in essence are wrong. That would be like saying evolution does not exist because we don't have the missing link. The exact details of the predictions are often incorrect but the trend is quite apparent.
    If we do something about it and climate change turns out to be false we will be in a far better position than if we do nothing and climate change turns out to be because of us. Some like to gamble....
    Doesn't polar ice show quite conclusively that they are warming? What logic says to wait and see? For all the cities that have been or are under severe smog, I don't think a .5% decrease will be meaningful. What gives? For those who think we have nothing to do with it, how warm do you think the planet can get before it becomes uninhabitable?
    As to real estate, those who live in more sensitive areas are beginning to catch on. And if the entire world is going to flood or burn up in a few years I might as well buy my dream home now, so it could be that both are right. Just sayin'

  13. #192
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,487

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by A Novice View Post
    Interestingly, while I often think I have all the answers to the world's problems, this one I do not know the answer to.

    I understand that 97% of climate scientists agree... but I also understand that 98% of real estate agents agree this would be a good time to buy a house. .
    Scientists do not generally depend on the # of publications they sell (oopps... publish) - not immediately and not directly, and still mostly interested in the science (not the money).

    My agent was very adamant I bought the house I bought (so he could use the proceeds to pay off his swimming pool).
    You go into real estate for one AND only one thing - money.
    Significant difference.

    My agent never even alerted me of the radon pollution of the area - public information but I was an inexperienced buyer to look it up myself (I found about the radon much later, having lived in the house with radon for years).
    He chose his money over my safety.
    A matter of fact, many people will sell the safety and well-being of the others for money.
    Especially - long-term and hard to prove, when the pay back is immediate.

    Find a better example.
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  14. #193
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,487

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Amibusiness View Post
    ....
    As to real estate, those who live in more sensitive areas are beginning to catch on. And if the entire world is going to flood or burn up in a few years I might as well buy my dream home now, so it could be that both are right. Just sayin'
    They will convince you of no floods coming.
    Not a problem for them.
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  15. #194
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Bath, Maine, United States
    Posts
    2,473

    Default Re: Global Warming

    "Apparently the carbon leaving is dissolved into the oceans to become fish bones, clamshells, and limestone."
    Those are composed of calcium. Carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid which dissolves calcium.
    It is not true that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
    They can learn them, they just can't do them.

  16. #195
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,487

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Saltybee View Post
    "Apparently the carbon leaving is dissolved into the oceans to become fish bones, clamshells, and limestone."
    Those are composed of calcium. Carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid which dissolves calcium.
    Actually - both.

    Animal skeletons largely consist of Calcium Carbonate (CaHO^3)
    Unsure how the Carbon component came up, but this is not from the atmospheric CO2 (but rather from naturally dissolved carbonates).
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  17. #196
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,922

    Default Re: Global Warming

    >I understand that 97% of climate scientists agree...

    First of all, they don't. Do some research on how that number was arrived at.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw

    Second, even if they DID, which they do not, science is not done by consensus.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  18. #197
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Co, NY, USA
    Posts
    3,660

    Default Re: Global Warming

    HL Mencken said: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. "

  19. #198
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Aylett, Virginia
    Posts
    4,257

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Saltybee View Post
    Those are composed of calcium. Carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid which dissolves calcium.
    Actually, they are composed of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Calcium is a metal.
    Thankfully, the bees are smarter than I am. They are doing well, in spite of my efforts to help them.

  20. #199
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Bath, Maine, United States
    Posts
    2,473

    Default Re: Global Warming

    And rust is still iron.
    It is not true that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
    They can learn them, they just can't do them.

  21. #200

    Default Re: Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    >I understand that 97% of climate scientists agree...

    First of all, they don't. Do some research on how that number was arrived at.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw

    Second, even if they DID, which they do not, science is not done by consensus.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY
    This is another classic: proving claims with youtube videos.



    videos from users:

    -1000frolly PhD (Wikipedia finds nothing about this user)


    -PragerU "PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization co-founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager that creates videos on various political, economic and philosophical topics from a conservative or right-wing perspective.[1] The videos are posted on YouTube and usually feature a speaker who lectures for about five minutes.[2] The organization relies on donations, and much of the early funding came from hydraulic fracturing billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.[3]

    PragerU is not a university or academic institution."

    -The Heartland Institute "In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans."


    Wikipedia has its faults, but everybody can correct them, unlike Youtube videos.

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •