Global Warming

Spherical Bastard wrote

This is the kind of response that makes me weary to jump aboard the global warming bandwagon. The temperature of the Earth is raising but to what degree humans are playing in this has yet to be seen. The bottom line seems to be that there is not enough evidence to show that CO2 is the cause. And the solution, if there is one, sure as fuck isn't energy saving light bulbs.

Here is a video on the topic if anybody is interested in it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

I am well aware of that, the light bulb thing was just an example. And isn't there a consensus among scientists that CO2 emission and humans ARE the cause? I mean, I read LiveScience, New Scientist and Science Daily, and I've seen An Inconvenient Truth. I'm pretty much convinced.

skribb wrote

I am well aware of that, the light bulb thing was just an example. And isn't there a consensus among scientists that CO2 emission and humans ARE the cause? I mean, I read LiveScience, New Scientist and Science Daily, and I've seen An Inconvenient Truth. I'm pretty much convinced.

There is a consensus that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature but the issue is that the correlation is misunderstood. The temperature of the planet doesn't go up because of CO2, CO2 is created by an increase in the planet's temperature. In An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore's argument basically rests on a graph that he shows in which CO2 levels are shown compared to the earth's rises and falls in temperature. What you don't get to see, is that the rise in CO2 levels is delayed 800 years behind the temperature changes. i.e. the temperature change happens first and the CO2 increase follows it.

Also, the majority of CO2, which only makes up a tiny portion of the green house gases in our atmosphere, does not come from humans. In fact the amount of CO2 that humans add to the atmosphere, as opposed to other sources, is in the single digit percentages. Almost all of our CO2 comes from a combination of volcano activity, animals/live stock emissions and most noticeably the oceans.

It's interesting to note, that if you check the planet's temperature increases and decreases, you will see that we had a decrease in temperature during the industrial revolution. At the time period when we had the biggest boost in CO2 producing industries, we saw a decrease in temperature. When the industrial revolution ended, we started to see an increase in temperature. The data is precisely opposite of what we would expect if the CO2 concept were true.

The fact of the matter is, there is no real good basis to make the argument that CO2 is causing a global warming nor is there a good argument to be made that humans are in any way influencing it. It just so happens, that saving the planet is a cause that almost everyone can get behind, so people assume that if you think humans causing global warming is bull shit, they automatically assume you are some "Fuck the earth in it's ass hole" communist.

This is rpecisely why I'm unconvinced. We know a lot less than some people think, especially the jeetards. And, oh, I'm a "Fuck the earth in its asshole republican". Just sayin'.

[Choobus]

Spherical Bastard wrote

Those god damn swimming polar bears are just so cute.

he's not swimming, he's breakdancing....

[antix]

Philboid Studge wrote

I'm wearing the precioussssssssssssssss.

:invisiblesmilie:

It's ours! ours it is. And we wants it. We needs it. They stole it from us. Wicked, tricksy, false atheistses.

[DrunkMonkey]

Spherical Bastard wrote

Also, the majority of CO2, which only makes up a tiny portion of the green house gases in our atmosphere, does not come from humans. In fact the amount of CO2 that humans add to the atmosphere, as opposed to other sources, is in the single digit percentages. Almost all of our CO2 comes from a combination of volcano activity, animals/live stock emissions and most noticeably the oceans.

Even if the CO2 emissions caused by fossil fuels is relatively small, it can have an effect. To think this isn't true is an error in logic on your part.

It is all about equilibrium. Imagine a sink with a partially closed drain. It allows just as much water to flow out as is put in by the faucet- the system is in equilibrium. Now imagine that you start adding more water one cup at a time. The amount of water "in" is now more than the amount of water "out". Eventually you will overflow the sink.

[DrunkMonkey]

Spherical Bastard wrote

There is a consensus that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature but the issue is that the correlation is misunderstood. The temperature of the planet doesn't go up because of CO2, CO2 is created by an increase in the planet's temperature. In An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore's argument basically rests on a graph that he shows in which CO2 levels are shown compared to the earth's rises and falls in temperature. What you don't get to see, is that the rise in CO2 levels is delayed 800 years behind the temperature changes. i.e. the temperature change happens first and the CO2 increase follows it.

It's interesting to note, that if you check the planet's temperature increases and decreases, you will see that we had a decrease in temperature during the industrial revolution. At the time period when we had the biggest boost in CO2 producing industries, we saw a decrease in temperature. When the industrial revolution ended, we started to see an increase in temperature. The data is precisely opposite of what we would expect if the CO2 concept were true.

Thank you, Mr. armchair scientist. Do you really think climatologists are oblivious to these objections? There are good explanations:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ities-updated/

[Professor Chaos]

Spherical Bastard wrote

There is a consensus that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature but the issue is that the correlation is misunderstood. The temperature of the planet doesn't go up because of CO2, CO2 is created by an increase in the planet's temperature. In An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore's argument basically rests on a graph that he shows in which CO2 levels are shown compared to the earth's rises and falls in temperature. What you don't get to see, is that the rise in CO2 levels is delayed 800 years behind the temperature changes. i.e. the temperature change happens first and the CO2 increase follows it.

Also, the majority of CO2, which only makes up a tiny portion of the green house gases in our atmosphere, does not come from humans. In fact the amount of CO2 that humans add to the atmosphere, as opposed to other sources, is in the single digit percentages. Almost all of our CO2 comes from a combination of volcano activity, animals/live stock emissions and most noticeably the oceans.

Also interesting, and a far cry from what I've read. According to this source, CO2 is responsible for between 9-26% of the greenhouse effect.
It's interesting to note, that if you check the planet's temperature increases and decreases, you will see that we had a decrease in temperature during the industrial revolution. At the time period when we had the biggest boost in CO2 producing industries, we saw a decrease in temperature. When the industrial revolution ended, we started to see an increase in temperature. The data is precisely opposite of what we would expect if the CO2 concept were true.

The fact of the matter is, there is no real good basis to make the argument that CO2 is causing a global warming nor is there a good argument to be made that humans are in any way influencing it. It just so happens, that saving the planet is a cause that almost everyone can get behind, so people assume that if you think humans causing global warming is bull shit, they automatically assume you are some "Fuck the earth in it's ass hole" communist.

Virtually everything you're saying goes contrasts virtually every scientist interested in the topic.

Do you have any sources to back these claims?

DrunkMonkey wrote

Even if the CO2 emissions caused by fossil fuels is relatively small, it can have an effect. To think this isn't true is an error in logic on your part.

It is all about equilibrium. Imagine a sink with a partially closed drain. It allows just as much water to flow out as is put in by the faucet- the system is in equilibrium. Now imagine that you start adding more water one cup at a time. The amount of water "in" is now more than the amount of water "out". Eventually you will overflow the sink.

You underestimate the Earth's ability to work its own shit out. There have been times in the past, even in the relatively near past, in which our temperature and CO2 levels were far greater than they are today, and life as well as the break dancing polar bears made it through just fine. You have to understand, that of all of the gases that make up Earth's atmosphere, human CO2 production accounts for less than 1% of those gases. We are unbalancing the atmosphere in the same way that hurling a boulder into the ocean is raising the sea level and threatening beach homes. Sure it will make the ocean rise, but not noticeably. As mentioned previously, humans are far and away the minority when it comes to CO2 production. If CO2 really were the cause of temperature increases, then we should be figuring out ways to make giant heat resistant corks to plug up the world's volcanoes and covering our oceans in saran wrap.

And your sink analogy is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't take into account the fact that the Earth's temperature is in a constant state of natural fluctuation. Sometimes it's cooler, sometimes it's hotter and it's all based on things we have no control over, primarily the sun and how much light we happen to be getting from it at a certain point. In order to correct your sink analogy, the input and output of the water would have to not be constant and be keeping itself in a state of equilibrium.

[Professor Chaos]

Spherical Bastard wrote

You have to understand, that of all of the gases that make up Earth's atmosphere, human CO2 production accounts for less than 1% of those gases.

That's not the issue. Not in the least.

"Out of all the molecules of fluid in your water glass, this highly toxic poison accounts for less than 1% of those molecules."



Anyways, about those sources...?

Professor Chaos wrote

Virtually everything you're saying goes contrasts virtually every scientist interested in the topic.

Do you have any sources to back these claims?

Well I would hardly consider an argument from authority to be a good one, but if we are going to be pulling from the brightest scientists to debate this, then you might be interested to know that the professor of meterology at mother fucking MIT happens to agree that human caused global warming is a load of dingo's kidneys.

Professor Chaos wrote

That's not the issue. Not in the least.

"Out of all the molecules of fluid in your water glass, this highly toxic poison accounts for less than 1% of those molecules."



Anyways, about those sources...?

Honestly, I don't give enough of a shit about this topic to really go into much detail. I have links, but if I provide them then I will just get more entrenched in this discussion. The video I linked earlier on has a lot of the same information I have so if you are really interested in it, you should be able to get quite a few sources from that.

Just as an aside, your analogy is also seriously flawed. CO2 is an important part of our atmosphere and fundamental aspect to the growth and development of life on earth. I don't know to what degree you would have to fuck with the CO2 to start causing damage, but everything I have read says that the couple parts per billion that we add doesn't do anything that the earth can't easily compensate for. Most of the arguments state that if we allow it to get worse then we might have a major problem on our hands.

[Professor Chaos]

Spherical Bastard wrote

Well I would hardly consider an argument from authority to be a good one, but if we are going to be pulling from the brightest scientists to debate this, then you might be interested to know that the professor of meterology at mother fucking MIT happens to agree that human caused global warming is a load of dingo's kidneys.

I love when people pull out "arugment from authority" as if merely saying those words invalidates the usefulness of scientific consensus. You do realize this isn't a consensus of 70%, or 80%, don't you? Their evidence is well-documented. I'm asking for yours.

I'm not interested to know that the muthafucking professor of muthafucking meterology at muthafucking MIT thinks this.

I'm interested in seeing links to scientific journals, studies he's done, peer-reviewed citations of his work, etc.

[Professor Chaos]

Spherical Bastard wrote

Honestly, I don't give enough of a shit about this topic to really go into much detail. I have links, but if I provide them then I will just get more entrenched in this discussion. The video I linked earlier on has a lot of the same information I have so if you are really interested in it, you should be able to get quite a few sources from that.

Just as an aside, your analogy is also seriously flawed. CO2 is an important part of our atmosphere and fundamental aspect to the growth and development of life on earth. I don't know to what degree you would have to fuck with the CO2 to start causing damage, but everything I have read says that the couple parts per billion that we add doesn't do anything that the earth can't easily compensate for. Most of the arguments state that if we allow it to get worse then we might have a major problem on our hands.

What the fuck have you read? Virtually every published work by virtually every relevant scientist says the exact opposite. Are you reading your science while waiting in the lobby during an oil change?

Professor Chaos wrote

I love when people pull out "arugment from authority" as if merely saying those words invalidates the usefulness of scientific consensus.

Arguing from scientific consensus, as you were doing, is an argument from authority. That is why i said that I don't argue from authority, but since you decided to, I could throw out an MIT professor. I argued from authority as a response to your argument from authority.

Professor Chaos wrote

You do realize this isn't a consensus of 70%, or 80%, don't you? Their evidence is well-documented. I'm asking for yours.

I'm not interested to know that the muthafucking professor of muthafucking meterology at muthafucking MIT thinks this.

I'm interested in seeing links to scientific journals, studies he's done, peer-reviewed citations of his work, etc.

Alright I'll get you some links. I've got a class right now so it will be a couple hours.