1. Post #41
    Bob_Namg's Avatar
    June 2012
    477 Posts
    The carbon cycle naturally occurs over long periods of time. And it always has, right now the atmospheric building of carbon is at its high and it will mostly stay that way on average for years to come. No matter what we do with society, we will always gradually become "cleaner" with our technology. If you don't believe me, then look at how we replaced coal/gas power plants with nuclear ones over the last few decades.
    And the total atmospheric levels of carbon in most areas have been on the decline for the last few years, if you haven't noticed.
    Unless we started pumping absolutely everything we had into furnaces all around the world, then China's the country in danger of atmospheric depression/condensing. Of course the carbonic gasses can spread, and that could definitely be an issue. But our temperature levels are fine and will recede come the next few centuries.

  2. Post #42
    Voted WORST Gold Member 2012
    Killuah's Avatar
    August 2005
    14,730 Posts
    And your point is? I'm pretty sure I can read a graph, I said in my post that the CO2 (RED) is going up but the temperate variation (BLUE) is about the same as the other cycles, so I can't comprehend what your point is about me not being able to read the graph.
    you notice in that graph other than the temperature variation going up and down at regular intervals it's almost on the same level as it was on the last warm period the Earth had
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Germany Show Events Winner Winner x 5 (list)

  3. Post #43
    Gold Member
    Squad's Avatar
    March 2009
    3,365 Posts
    I actually went and found that paper (funny how journalists never actually cite them)

    1) The author is not a climate scientist.
    2) The paper barely makes mention of modern methane emissions. That emphasis was added afterwards by journalists.
    3) The journal it was published in was about biology, not climate science.
    4) It was cited by only one later paper, which was not about climate science. It was about the digestive tract of ostriches.
    5) The journalists that picked up on it also had no background in climate science.

    Also compounding this whole issue is that methane eventually (~12 years) oxidises in the atmosphere to make carbon dioxide and water anyway.

    Edited:



    [citation needed]
    http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/...reenhouse-gas/


    Just one site claiming it.

    I am not an expert in this field, but I have seen the graphs and data (from other researchers and in person while speaking to them) they make good points and they also have data to back up their points.

    Are they right? I don't know.
    Are they wrong? I don't know.

    Did the graph I was presented make sense with corresponding data to support it? Yes.

    Conclusion. I don't know as much as experts on global warming or anything like that, but I am open to new ideas.

  4. Post #44
    The carbon cycle naturally occurs over long periods of time. And it always has, right now the atmospheric building of carbon is at its high and it will mostly stay that way on average for years to come. No matter what we do with society, we will always gradually become "cleaner" with our technology. If you don't believe me, then look at how we replaced coal/gas power plants with nuclear ones over the last few decades.
    And the total atmospheric levels of carbon in most areas have been on the decline for the last few years, if you haven't noticed.
    Unless we started pumping absolutely everything we had into furnaces all around the world, then China's the only place in danger of atmospheric depression/condensing.
    yes, no, no, no, especially no, no

  5. Post #45
    Bob_Namg's Avatar
    June 2012
    477 Posts
    You know what's funny about this? If a volcano erupted within this time period, then the atmospheric concentration of carbonic gasses would sharply rise in various areas for a time, showing a small increase on that chart. Think about the latest eruptions, and compare them to this chart around the times of the aftermath of their eruptions.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  6. Post #46
    OvB
    Facepunch resident scientist
    OvB's Avatar
    March 2007
    12,231 Posts
    We can only hope that this causes some CO2 absorbing algae to grow better although I wouldn't mind living in Waterworld I sure as hell would use that oil tanker better than that one eyed bastard.
    Shame we would all starve to death then, eh. Acidification from CO2 uptake will kill the a major part of the ocean food chain.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  7. Post #47

    June 2012
    90 Posts
    Sky will be like in the Matrix Movie
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Azerbaijan Show Events Late Late x 1 (list)

  8. Post #48
    http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/...reenhouse-gas/


    Just one site claiming it.

    I am not an expert in this field, but I have seen the graphs and data (from other researchers and in person while speaking to them) they make good points and they also have data to back up their points.

    Are they right? I don't know.
    Are they wrong? I don't know.

    Did the graph I was presented make sense with corresponding data to support it? Yes.

    Conclusion. I don't know as much as experts on global warming or anything like that, but I am open to new ideas.
    that's a wordpress blog written by a guy with a political axe to grind.

    if you want confirmation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas you need look no further than our second-closest astronomical neighbour

    the consensus of the scientific community is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the current climate change is anthropogenic. of course they might be wrong, but that's a tiny probability, and it's shrinking every day.

  9. Post #49
    Gold Member
    Biotoxsin's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,093 Posts
    I remember reading about this a while ago, it's a small scale version of an idea which would in theory work to "cool" the Earth but would in the process change the color of the sky.

  10. Post #50
    DeanWinchester's Avatar
    May 2010
    3,679 Posts
    Can you? You sure as hell didn't read that source you posted so you'll understand if we're a bit skeptical.
    Again, I ask you to point at any time where I denied that the CO2 is rising above normal, I said so in my post, unless you're denying also the fact that the temperature variation (should I place an emphasis on BLUE since everybody here can only see RED apparently) is about the same as the correspondent other warm cycles the earth has had previously, so explain to me how this graph proves that human CO2 output has a direct relation to temperature increases (attention I'm not denying that it does but that it doesn't have as much of an impact as everyone here is claiming).

    Sure, they are both related, every time the CO2 goes up so does the temperature variation (either that or the other way around) but right now that graph isn't proof of anything other than the normal CO2 emissions + the human CO2 emissions have taken it to a whole new level, however nowhere in the graph does it show an influence on temperature variation even after the CO2 levels rose above their correspondent levels on other periods.

    I admit I might be wrong, but trying to counter an opinion with ridicule and misreading my posts on purpose won't take you anywhere.

  11. Post #51
    Gold Member
    chunkymonkey's Avatar
    January 2005
    18,413 Posts
    You know what's funny about this? If a volcano erupted within this time period, then the atmospheric concentration of carbonic gasses would sharply rise in various areas for a time, showing a small increase on that chart. Think about the latest eruptions, and compare them to this chart around the times of the aftermath of their eruptions.
    Congratulations, you don't have any idea about you're talking about.

  12. Post #52
    Bob_Namg's Avatar
    June 2012
    477 Posts
    With the polar caps melted, we'd still have a majority of landmass available.
    Florida could very well be half underwater in this case, though.
    Congratulations, you don't have any idea about you're talking about.
    I may be an idiot, but none of you know any more than I do.
    THINK about the concept.
    now you're grasping at straws

    also volcanoes are well known for their cooling effects because of their sulphur output
    They still have a direct output of ash and carbon aswell as many other minerals and sulfur. I'm only talking about the difference of carbon concentration.

  13. Post #53
    You know what's funny about this? If a volcano erupted within this time period, then the atmospheric concentration of carbonic gasses would sharply rise in various areas for a time, showing a small increase on that chart. Think about the latest eruptions, and compare them to this chart around the times of the aftermath of their eruptions.
    now you're grasping at straws

    also volcanoes are well known for their cooling effects because of their sulphur output

  14. Post #54
    Voted WORST Gold Member 2012
    Killuah's Avatar
    August 2005
    14,730 Posts
    http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/...reenhouse-gas/


    Just one site claiming it.

    I am not an expert in this field, but I have seen the graphs and data (from other researchers and in person while speaking to them) they make good points and they also have data to back up their points.

    Are they right? I don't know.
    Are they wrong? I don't know.

    Did the graph I was presented make sense with corresponding data to support it? Yes.

    Conclusion. I don't know as much as experts on global warming or anything like that, but I am open to new ideas.

    Let me reinterpret the graphs a little(because this is heavily bullshitteted interpretation, CO2 is KNOW to shift light wavelenghts from shorter to longer when light transmits)



  15. Post #55
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    January 2005
    4,680 Posts
    the methane released by dinosaur feces contributed more to global warming back in those days than the carbon emissions made by our cars, etc does today


    (User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - Ninja101))
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Show Events Funny Funny x 6Winner Winner x 2 (list)

  16. Post #56
    Gold Member
    Squad's Avatar
    March 2009
    3,365 Posts
    that's a wordpress blog written by a guy with a political axe to grind.

    if you want confirmation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas you need look no further than our second-closest astronomical neighbour

    the consensus of the scientific community is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the current climate change is anthropogenic. of course they might be wrong, but that's a tiny probability, and it's shrinking every day.
    I work in the scientific community and I can tell you that the consensus of the scientific community on the matter is mixed... I have seen LEGITIMATE scientist RESPECTED in their field promote this kind of information.

    That was just the first google result I found on it so I didn't waste time making the graph myself.

  17. Post #57
    you should probably snip that

    Edited:

    I work in the scientific community and I can tell you that the consensus of the scientific community on the matter is mixed... I have seen LEGITIMATE scientist RESPECTED in their field promote this kind of information.
    no it isn't mixed at all, it's overwhelming

    A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus. The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus:
    National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
    And many more.
    Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence.[15] In addition, the Pentagon now ranks global warming as a "destabilizing force"
    also what field are you in (genuinely interested)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member
    Squad's Avatar
    March 2009
    3,365 Posts
    you should probably snip that

    Edited:



    no it isn't mixed at all, it's overwhelming
    Ribblett and Ribarzyk ... aanndd you got me. I can only recall two names. Good job.

    Sorry I don't always remember peoples names at conferences, usually I meet a few hundred people at a time. Hard to keep everyone straight.


    Also, no need to attack me anymore. I was just offering another view point take it or leave it I don't care.

  19. Post #59
    DeanWinchester's Avatar
    May 2010
    3,679 Posts
    And here we go again, you can keep at it and I'm still gonna laugh it off because I never denied the CO2 levels are above normal, however there is no relation between the levels above normal and an influence on temperature variation, as we can see on the other cycles, maybe you should look at the other part of the graph and not only the part that interests you.

    I'll put it simple:

    There is relationship that goes one of two ways:
    - Temperature variation rises as a result of CO2 increase.
    - CO2 rises as a result of temperature variation.

    From looking at what has happened for 90% of the graph we can't be sure but then (wait for it we're getting to your favorite part of the graph):

    CO2 goes off the charts, which is to be expected as we're adding the human caused CO2 emissions.
    Temperature variation stays the same however.
    Conclusion? So far it seems that the temperature variation is not affected by the non-human CO2 emissions but the other way around, the CO2 is above normal because we have the human factor added into the equation but SO FAR there is no influence from the CO2 observed ON the temperature variation, not on that graph at least.

    May I also note that the temperature was already rising before we came into the equation.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #60
    Bob_Namg's Avatar
    June 2012
    477 Posts
    -snip-
    Edit:
    Just realized the chart has human interaction added on.

    You do realize that that still makes no difference in temperature?

    Second Edit: And that the chart even shows the same?

  21. Post #61
    Gold Member
    chunkymonkey's Avatar
    January 2005
    18,413 Posts
    I work in the scientific community and I can tell you that the consensus of the scientific community on the matter is mixed... I have seen LEGITIMATE scientist RESPECTED in their field promote this kind of information.

    That was just the first google result I found on it so I didn't waste time making the graph myself.
    It's not mixed. There is a 97% consensus that climate change is happening and an 84% consensus that we are causing it.

  22. Post #62
    Bob_Namg's Avatar
    June 2012
    477 Posts
    It's not mixed. There is a 97% consensus that climate change is happening and an 84% consensus that we are causing it.
    That's because there is money involved.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 7 (list)

  23. Post #63
    CO2 goes off the charts, which is to be expected as we're adding the human caused CO2 emissions.
    Temperature variation stays the same however.
    Conclusion? So far it seems that the temperature variation is not affected by the non-human CO2 emissions but the other way around, the CO2 is above normal because we have the human factor added into the equation but SO FAR there is no influence from the CO2 observed ON the temperature variation, not on that graph at least.
    good lord look at the scale on the graph

    there hasn't yet been enough time for the temperature effect to be noticed.

    Edited:

    That's because there is money involved.
    [citation needed]

    seriously do you have any idea how far-fetched the conspiracy you're proposing is? do you know just how many people there are researching climate change? their salaries aren't that great - they could make a fucking killing if they could convincingly show that the whole thing was a sham.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  24. Post #64
    Voted WORST Gold Member 2012
    Killuah's Avatar
    August 2005
    14,730 Posts
    Again, I ask you to point at any time where I denied that the CO2 is rising above normal, I said so in my post, unless you're denying also the fact that the temperature variation (should I place an emphasis on BLUE since everybody here can only see RED apparently) is about the same as the correspondent other warm cycles the earth has had previously, so explain to me how this graph proves that human CO2 output has a direct relation to temperature increases (attention I'm not denying that it does but that it doesn't have as much of an impact as everyone here is claiming).

    Sure, they are both related, every time the CO2 goes up so does the temperature variation (either that or the other way around) but right now that graph isn't proof of anything other than the normal CO2 emissions + the human CO2 emissions have taken it to a whole new level, however nowhere in the graph does it show an influence on temperature variation even after the CO2 levels rose above their correspondent levels on other periods.

    I admit I might be wrong, but trying to counter an opinion with ridicule and misreading my posts on purpose won't take you anywhere.
    I think it's when you say that 380 ppmv is almost the same as in all other warmth periods.
    Notice the "other than the temperature".

    you notice in that graph other than the temperature variation going up and down at regular intervals it's almost on the same level as it was on the last warm period the Earth had

    I get what you want to say though and you got a point but I hope you also see that the simple "what came first" game isn't really working here. For all we know, the sea might be the most important factor in temperature, hence back in ye old eras CO2 always kind of "followed" the temperature.

    Maybe the Earth is just catching up, maybe the rise in CO2 USED to be a delayed effect where a small change meant a HUGE rise in temperature, it could e hidden in our data since we can't date precise enough.

    Now maybe(a lot of maybes) the CO2 levels rose SOO FRIGGIN' fast, the CO2 even managed to overcome the temperature effect it had or maybe once rising fast enough it actually triggered a temperature-buffer effect, the same one that saved the planet from becoming a hot CO2 hell.

    We don't know.



    What we know:
    In the last 100 years CO2 rises as fast as never and that is undenieably our fault.
    In the last 100 years Temperature rises as fast as never .

    Our link:
    CO2 is known to change light wavelenth into less reflectable(longer) ones and reflects "warm"(infrared) light better than "cold"(UV) light.

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member
    chunkymonkey's Avatar
    January 2005
    18,413 Posts
    That's because there is money involved.
    Oh wow. Are you a comedian?

  26. Post #66
    OvB
    Facepunch resident scientist
    OvB's Avatar
    March 2007
    12,231 Posts
    And here we go again, you can keep at it and I'm still gonna laugh it off because I never denied the CO2 levels are above normal, however there is no relation between the levels above normal and an influence on temperature variation, as we can see on the other cycles, maybe you should look at the other part of the graph and not only the part that interests you.

    I'll put it simple:

    There is relationship that goes one of two ways:
    - Temperature variation rises as a result of CO2 increase.
    - CO2 rises as a result of temperature variation.

    From looking at what has happened for 90% of the graph we can't be sure but then (wait for it we're getting to your favorite part of the graph):

    CO2 goes off the charts, which is to be expected as we're adding the human caused CO2 emissions.
    Temperature variation stays the same however.
    Conclusion? So far it seems that the temperature variation is not affected by the non-human CO2 emissions but the other way around, the CO2 is above normal because we have the human factor added into the equation but SO FAR there is no influence from the CO2 observed ON the temperature variation, not on that graph at least.

    May I also note that the temperature was already rising before we came into the equation.
    The entirety of our modern existence is in the last few pixels on that chart. Our CO2 spike is notable but there hasn't been enough time for it to make a noticeable shift in temperature on that scale. Give it a few hundred years.

  27. Post #67
    Gold Member
    Fish_poke's Avatar
    July 2006
    7,681 Posts
    good lord look at the scale on the graph

    there hasn't yet been enough time for the temperature effect to be noticed.

    Edited:



    [citation needed]

    seriously do you have any idea how far-fetched the conspiracy you're proposing is? do you know just how many people there are researching climate change? their salaries aren't that great - they could make a fucking killing if they could convincingly show that the whole thing was a sham.
    Jesus christ you're attacking people on purpose at this point. Shut the fuck up.

    That aside, it could be either way. Some scientists say one way, other say another. It is a THEORY, not a proven statement. Whether or not one or both sides have proof doesn't make it any more or less of a theory.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 6 (list)

  28. Post #68
    DeanWinchester's Avatar
    May 2010
    3,679 Posts
    good lord look at the scale on the graph

    there hasn't yet been enough time for the temperature effect to be noticed.
    Actually there is, small but there is, what seems to be happening is that the temperature variation is freaking out (going up and down in very short intervals) but not increasing above the normal for an equivalent cycle (and the same pattern can be observed at some other times in the graph so it might not be that unusual), honestly I can't say for sure that I'm right and that other people are wrong or the way around, I'm trying to look at it from an overall point of view instead of just looking at the alarming end of the CO2 graph, by looking at the pattern we can see that the temperature variation is almost always above the CO2 level so in theory it should follow the rising CO2 levels instantly, however for some reason it isn't. (what I'm trying to say is that the blue graph should have already gone up along with the CO2 graph by looking at the rest of the graph, but it hasn't)

  29. Post #69
    Jesus christ you're attacking people on purpose at this point. Shut the fuck up.

    That aside, it could be either way. Some scientists say one way, other say another. It is a THEORY, not a proven statement. Whether or not one or both sides have proof doesn't make it any more or less of a theory.
    congratulations you are literally on the level of a creationist at this point

    http://www.notjustatheory.com/

    do a find-replace on "evolution" to "climate change"

    also read these two things

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
    http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/

    just because two people disagree doesn't mean that one person can't be overwhelmingly more likely to be correct given the evidence
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Winner Winner x 6Funny Funny x 2 (list)

  30. Post #70
    Voted WORST Gold Member 2012
    Killuah's Avatar
    August 2005
    14,730 Posts
    The entirety of our modern existence is in the last few pixels on that chart. Our CO2 spike is notable but there hasn't been enough time for it to make a noticeable shift in temperature on that scale. Give it a few hundred years.
    People also tend to forget that the earth is a closed system, energy can get out and in, matter can not(speaking in climate models).

    Hence there are many many more factors that can delay or speed the effect something has on the temperature(sun-earth distance, sun activity, water-vapor) while measuring gas levels is a pretty direct method .

  31. Post #71
    Actually there is, small but there is, what seems to be happening is that the temperature variation is freaking out (going up and down in very short intervals) but not increasing above the normal for an equivalent cycle (and the same pattern can be observed at some other times in the graph so it might not be that unusual), honestly I can't say for sure that I'm right and that other people are wrong or the way around, I'm trying to look at it from an overall point of view instead of just looking at the alarming end of the CO2 graph, by looking at the pattern we can see that the temperature variation is almost always above the CO2 level so in theory it should follow the rising CO2 levels instantly, however for some reason it isn't. (what I'm trying to say is that the blue graph should have already gone up along with the CO2 graph by looking at the rest of the graph, but it hasn't)
    if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about then why do you think you're in any position to disagree with the scientific consensus?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  32. Post #72
    DeanWinchester's Avatar
    May 2010
    3,679 Posts
    I think it's when you say that 380 ppmv is almost the same as in all other warmth periods.
    Notice the "other than the temperature".

    I get what you want to say though and you got a point but I hope you also see that the simple "what came first" game isn't really working here. For all we know, the sea might be the most important factor in temperature, hence back in ye old eras CO2 always kind of "followed" the temperature.

    Maybe the Earth is just catching up, maybe the rise in CO2 USED to be a delayed effect where a small change meant a HUGE rise in temperature, it could e hidden in our data since we can't date precise enough.

    Now maybe(a lot of maybes) the CO2 levels rose SOO FRIGGIN' fast, the CO2 even managed to overcome the temperature effect it had or maybe once rising fast enough it actually triggered a temperature-buffer effect, the same one that saved the planet from becoming a hot CO2 hell.

    We don't know.



    What we know:
    In the last 100 years CO2 rises as fast as never and that is undenieably our fault.
    In the last 100 years Temperature rises as fast as never .

    Our link:
    CO2 is known to change light wavelenth into less reflectable(longer) ones and reflects "warm"(infrared) light better than "cold"(UV) light.
    OK, I should apologize because I didn't mean to say other than temperature but other than CO2, my bad for not going back and re-reading what I wrote, it was an innocent switch between words and I can see why I might have seemed like a moron.

    However I must agree with you, it's too early to say what's going to happen because there never has been a situation like this, so the Earth could just (to put it simple) "deal with it" or ir could be a cause for concern, it's still too early to tell.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  33. Post #73
    Gold Member
    chunkymonkey's Avatar
    January 2005
    18,413 Posts
    Jesus christ you're attacking people on purpose at this point. Shut the fuck up.

    That aside, it could be either way. Some scientists say one way, other say another. It is a THEORY, not a proven statement. Whether or not one or both sides have proof doesn't make it any more or less of a theory.
    Umm a theory never stops being a theory.

    http://www.notjustatheory.com/
    (It's about evolution but it applies here as well)

    Edit:

    God dammit DainBramageStudios! >:(
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  34. Post #74
    DeanWinchester's Avatar
    May 2010
    3,679 Posts
    if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about then why do you think you're in any position to disagree with the scientific consensus?
    I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to disagree with anything and express my point of view, I'm sorry if I don't care about what other people think of my opinion (in regards to being agressive towards it, not because they oppose it), I'm much more interested in having a productive discussion about the subject than just calling people dumb because I deem myself more important or more intelligent than them, points of view on both sides are always good unless they lead to wars, and so far the only war I've seen emerge from this thread is a flame war from the people who think they are right and everybody else is wrong (yes that includes you). So I'm not even going to bother anymore, climate change threads always end up like the religious ones, with a lot of people getting banned and nothing productive coming out of it.

  35. Post #75
    Gold Member
    chunkymonkey's Avatar
    January 2005
    18,413 Posts
    I suggest the people of this thread watch Potholer54's excellent video series on climate change.

    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...8&feature=plcp
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  36. Post #76
    Voted WORST Gold Member 2012
    Killuah's Avatar
    August 2005
    14,730 Posts
    congratulations you are literally on the level of a creationist at this point

    http://www.notjustatheory.com/

    do a find-replace on "evolution" to "climate change"

    also read these two things

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
    http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/

    just because two people disagree doesn't mean that one person can't be overwhelmingly more likely to be correct given the evidence
    Reading "The Fallacy Of Gray" feels a bit like reading Galts Manifest from Atlas Shruged(which, by the way, is a great piece of philosophical work)

    Edited:

    OK, I should apologize because I didn't mean to say other than temperature but other than CO2, my bad for not going back and re-reading what I wrote, it was an innocent switch between words and I can see why I might have seemed like a moron.

    However I must agree with you, it's too early to say what's going to happen because there never has been a situation like this, so the Earth could just (to put it simple) "deal with it" or ir could be a cause for concern, it's still too early to tell.

    Peace. You made a mistake and I didn't take the time to see what you actually meant and jumped to conclusions.

    I hope we both go out of this thread a bit more educated.

    Me on dealing with posts more calmly, you less clumsy in posting :D

    Edited:

    I suggest the people of this thread watch Potholer54's excellent video series on climate change.

    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...8&feature=plcp

    Didn't know about the dimming.

    Actually the graph I showed would explain why our temperature stays roughly the same while CO2 rises fast.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Germany Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  37. Post #77
    -
    archangel125's Avatar
    May 2006
    9,599 Posts
    Now, I've read through most of this thread, and I want to know whether I'm the only one missing the big picture here. If I'm not mistaken, here's how global warming works:

    Chemicals like Aerosols and Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere contribute to global warming by allowing the atmosphere to absorb rays (and heat) from the sun, but not permitting those rays, or that heat, to escape as easily, because they provide a reflective coating for solar radiation (This is why Venus, and NOT Mercury, is the hottest planet in our Solar System). Eventually this leads to a net raise in global temperatures, and human-made emissions are contributing massively to this.

    So this article is saying that scientists, just to see what'll happen, are going to put 'thousands of tons' of the stuff into the air in one go.

    If this doesn't seem like such a bad idea to you guys, maybe I'm missing something.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  38. Post #78
    Dennab
    May 2012
    338 Posts
    I actually went and found that paper (funny how journalists never actually cite them)

    1) The author is not a climate scientist.
    2) The paper barely makes mention of modern methane emissions. That emphasis was added afterwards by journalists.
    3) The journal it was published in was about biology, not climate science.
    4) It was cited by only one later paper, which was not about climate science. It was about the digestive tract of ostriches.
    5) The journalists that picked up on it also had no background in climate science.

    Also compounding this whole issue is that methane eventually (~12 years) oxidises in the atmosphere to make carbon dioxide and water anyway.
    Well supposedly something like 20% of our greenhouse gases comes from cattle flatulence.

  39. Post #79
    Voted WORST Gold Member 2012
    Killuah's Avatar
    August 2005
    14,730 Posts
    Now, I've read through most of this thread, and I want to know whether I'm the only one missing the big picture here. If I'm not mistaken, here's how global warming works:

    Chemicals like Aerosols and Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere contribute to global warming by allowing the atmosphere to absorb rays (and heat) from the sun, but not permitting those rays, or that heat, to escape as easily, because they provide a reflective coating for solar radiation (This is why Venus, and NOT Mercury, is the hottest planet in our Solar System). Eventually this leads to a net raise in global temperatures, and human-made emissions are contributing massively to this.

    So this article is saying that scientists, just to see what'll happen, are going to put 'thousands of tons' of the stuff into the air in one go.

    If this doesn't seem like such a bad idea to you guys, maybe I'm missing something.
    CO2 decreases the OUTPUT of heat radiation.

    These guys try to decrease the INPUT of heat radiation.

  40. Post #80
    -
    archangel125's Avatar
    May 2006
    9,599 Posts
    CO2 decreases the OUTPUT of heat radiation.

    These guys try to decrease the INPUT of heat radiation.
    Well, yeah, but would that not also decrease the output? The reflective particles don't have a single face that always points right at the sun.