Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 417 of 941 (823264)
11-08-2017 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by NoNukes
11-07-2017 9:24 PM


Re: Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause
NoNukes writes:
If there were natural processes, some of which raised temps and some of which lowered temps, it could turn out that the human contribution is relatively unimportant, and that none of efforts will prevent the east coast from moving to Atlanta by the end of the decade.
The part I am saying is obvious is that dumping a bunch of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will necessarily trap more heat than would otherwise be trapped. I will agree that it isn't obvious how much of a relative difference that extra trapped heat has made and will make, but the obvious part is that it is being trapped.
As jar is found of saying, it is the best case if humans are in responsible for the bulk, or a substantial part of global warning, because it is only the part within human control that we have a shot at fixing.
On the other side of the spectrum, if we were heading into another cycle of glaciation then it might actually be beneficial to start burning a ton of fossil fuels. A 1 mile thick glacier grinding its way through NY, NY would be just as bad or even worse than slowly encroaching sea water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2017 9:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2017 12:47 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 418 of 941 (823265)
11-08-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by jar
11-08-2017 10:14 AM


Re: it's obvious that those with eyes choose not to see.
jar writes:
What may not have been obvious was that most of the losses and damage were human caused and caused by choice. Houston has a long history of flooding and no real zoning or regulations about where to build or how to build to avoid flooding, and every effort to implement zoning and building regulations has been voted down.
The analogy I often use is the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. It is very true that some people who don't smoke can get lung cancer, and some people who do smoke don't get lung cancer. What they found is that cigarette smoking increases the probability that you will get lung cancer.
Climate change and strong storms are the same. The increased heat energy in the atmosphere and in the oceans increases the probability that strong storms will occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by jar, posted 11-08-2017 10:14 AM jar has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 421 of 941 (823269)
11-08-2017 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by NoNukes
11-08-2017 12:47 PM


Re: Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause
NoNukes writes:
Yes. That's just physics and chemistry. However, even that is only "obvious" to the educated.
If we pump a bunch of stuff in the atmosphere that traps heat, what do you think the result will be?
I think a vast majority of people would be able to figure out what the answer to that question is.
I am not disagreeing with any of that. What I am disagreeing with is the tendency to underestimate the complexity of the science. I doubt that one out of five folks here understands the science well enough to answer well thought out objections of the few scientists who don't agree with the consensus.
That's part of the con game that climate deniers use. They throw up a big smoke screen of complicated science to give the impression that they aren't just denying the science. Time after time we hear politicians (i.e. Republicans) saying that there is still a lot of debate among scientists, which is eerily similar to the refrain used by creationists. The common person isn't going to look up the science nor spend the time necessary to understand it, so they will just echo the same misinformation that the Republicans dish out to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2017 12:47 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2017 7:07 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 440 of 941 (823608)
11-13-2017 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by NoNukes
11-10-2017 7:07 PM


Re: Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause
NoNukes writes:
Sigh. I have addressed this question a number of times, including in the post you are responding to. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you believe that to be the only factor that needs to be considered, then you have an overly simple idea of the science behind AGW.
I never said that it is the only thing that needs to be considered. I said that it is the OBVIOUS part. It is OBVIOUS that no matter what contribution humans are making to warming, we are still making a contribution because we are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Again, CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere by humans, and it is also removed by a number of mechanisms. Things other than people also put CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There are also things like water vapor, methane, etc. Some of which have man-made and natural variation each having its own "half-life" within the atmosphere.
The previous 400,000 years has seen several ice ages and interglacials that bounce between 200 and 300 ppm CO2. The graph suddenly jumps to 400 ppm, an increase of 30%, and it does so during the time when we are burning gigatons of CO2. I think it is rather obvious that humans are increasing CO2 well above natural levels.
The argument that this is a natural level of CO2 just doesn't stack up. On top of that, the half life of water in the atmosphere is about 2 weeks. People know this as rain, which they should be familiar with. They can watch weather radar where water evaporates off the oceans, sweeps inland, and then dumps rain. All this happens in a matter of weeks.
We know the conclusion of those processes only because they fit of complex models that most of us don't understand fully, and the tracking of those models of the atmosphere, ocean, etc with temperatures we've measured along with other analysis that rules out the idea that what we understand to be the human contribution is either attributable to non-humans or to errors in measurement.
You don't need models or anything complicated to show that humans are causing more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere. Again, we are talking about the OBVIOUS parts, not the complicated parts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2017 7:07 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2017 6:27 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 442 of 941 (823632)
11-14-2017 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by NoNukes
11-13-2017 6:27 PM


Re: Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause
NoNukes writes:
Unless you want to argue that it is irrelevant whether we have 2 degrees or 0.2 degrees increase (due to human contribution of course) in temps over the next 50 years, then modeling does matter. It is not possible to make reasonable policy decisions on human activity without such information.
I think you need to go back one step. Your standard AGW denier out in the public may not even understand what the greenhouse effect is, how it works, or what makes CO2 a greenhouse gas. They may very well deny that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere traps heat. Once you convince them that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the rest of the conversation may go a lot easier.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2017 6:27 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by NoNukes, posted 11-26-2017 2:02 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 448 of 941 (824657)
12-01-2017 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by NoNukes
11-26-2017 2:02 PM


Re: Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause
NoNukes writes:
Not sure why it is painful to acknowledge that some "rocket science" is involved.
It isn't painful at all, and I have acknowledged the presence of rocket science in previous posts. All I am pointing to is that some of the science is easily accessible to the common person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by NoNukes, posted 11-26-2017 2:02 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 450 of 941 (824878)
12-04-2017 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by Phat
12-04-2017 4:01 PM


Re: Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause
Phat writes:
One side wants governments to do something. The other side (Trumps) wants governments to butt out and focus on doing their job.
Both sides wants government to do something, they just differ on what that something is. The whole reason for having a government is "doing something".
Also, Republicans are flat out denying that the warming is even happening. It isn't a matter of what we should do about it, but rather an "ostrich with its head in the ground" approach to inconvenient facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Phat, posted 12-04-2017 4:01 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by Phat, posted 12-04-2017 4:36 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(6)
Message 452 of 941 (824884)
12-04-2017 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by Phat
12-04-2017 4:36 PM


Re: Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause
Phat writes:
The Republicans likely fear higher taxes on themselves to remedy the solution...they would rather let private enterprise fix the planet.
First, they would have to admit that what we are doing is warming the planet.
Second, private enterprise is meant to turn a profit, not fix a planet. It's a bit like using a torque wrench to measure the frequency of UV light. Wrong tool for the job. As we saw with the recent Great Recession of 2008, private enterprise will forgo the long term health of an economy in order to earn short term profits. If this is what they do to the economy, imagine what this strategy will do to the planet. The whole reason we have the EPA is because companies can't be counted on to protect the environment on their own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Phat, posted 12-04-2017 4:36 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by jar, posted 03-25-2018 8:32 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 469 of 941 (830361)
03-27-2018 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Faith
03-26-2018 8:43 AM


Re: Climate Science Special Report
Faith writes:
Does it cover the American food industry, especially the meat industry, which according to many of the films I've mentioned on the natural foods thread is the biggest contributor to climate change of all of them.
That seems highly unlikely.
reference
It is also strange for a natural foods documentary to argue against meats which are natural foods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Faith, posted 03-26-2018 8:43 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 470 of 941 (830362)
03-27-2018 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by Faith
03-26-2018 2:19 PM


Re: Climate Science Special Report
Faith writes:
CO2 is easy, though: plant plant plant those gardens, everybody plant a tree, or one in a hundred of us plant a tree, over time that would accomplish a lot.
It wouldn't accomplish enough. The world average is 4 tons of carbon released per person. This means that you would have to produce 4,000 kilos of new biomass per year that is then buried and never eaten or used. Americans release 20 metric tons per year. I doubt we could ever plant enough trees to soak up all of the carbon we are currently using.
The animals are shown in these films packed tightly together, standing ankle deep in their own manure, which puts out a huge amount of gasses all by itself, not to mention contributing to the food poisoning outbreaks that require the agribusinesses to load the animals with antibiotics which we end up eating, contributing to the growth of resistant bacteria and so on and so forth. but I guess that's sliding off topic again.
If they were out in the wild all it would do is spread the manure around. Herbivores don't naturally hold their poo in.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Faith, posted 03-26-2018 2:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 03-27-2018 6:30 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 475 of 941 (830387)
03-28-2018 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by Faith
03-27-2018 6:30 PM


Re: Climate Science Special Report
Faith writes:
Someone in one of these films said that if cattle are free to roam and eat grass the e coli isn't a problem the way it is in confined quarters where their hides get splattered with it. And the grass itself plays some role in this though I didn't quite get what.
I don't see how E. coli being splashed onto hides poses a problem for releasing greenhouse gases, and the rest needs some fleshing out in order to be coherent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 03-27-2018 6:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 477 of 941 (830389)
03-28-2018 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by Faith
03-28-2018 11:59 AM


Re: Climate Science Special Report
Faith writes:
Supermarket will have to do if you can't grow your own, though I certainly agree there are drawbacks, that's what all these films I've been talking about on the plant-based thread show.
But what does this have to do with the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 03-28-2018 11:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Faith, posted 03-28-2018 12:06 PM Taq has replied
 Message 481 by frako, posted 03-28-2018 12:57 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 479 of 941 (830393)
03-28-2018 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Faith
03-28-2018 12:06 PM


Re: Climate Science Special Report
Faith writes:
Yes, we're getting off topic but there is the connection that agribusiness does contribute to climate problems so we're discussing possible solutions to that part of the problem.
It would seem to me that there could be an economy of scale with respect to agribusiness. You have to calculate the amount of carbon released per unit of food, and I would suspect that agribusiness is much more efficient in this respect than small farms or backyard gardens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Faith, posted 03-28-2018 12:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 482 of 941 (830398)
03-28-2018 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by frako
03-28-2018 12:57 PM


Re: Climate Science Special Report
frako writes:
One of the negative effects of climate change is a decrease in crop production, i think it is still whitin the lines of the topic at hand.
I am asking the opposite. What impact does crop production have on climate change?
The only large impact I am aware of is the clearing of natural habitats to make room for farms. Natural habitats, like prairies or rainforests, are natural carbon sinks since they bury plant matter. That is the irony of Brazilian ethanol production. Ethanol may be a renewable fuel, but they are clearing massive tracts of rainforest to grow crops for ethanol production and this results in a loss of carbon sinks. They will have to grow corn for decades or even centuries (relative to burning fossil fuels) before they break even with respect to their impact on total carbon in the atmosphere.
Growing crops in areas already cleared for urbanization may help a little, but then you run into problems of water usage and economy of scale. The amount of energy used and carbon released in urban farming may actually exceed those on large farms which makes it a wash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by frako, posted 03-28-2018 12:57 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Faith, posted 03-28-2018 1:59 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 484 by frako, posted 03-28-2018 2:23 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 487 of 941 (830405)
03-28-2018 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by frako
03-28-2018 2:23 PM


Re: Climate Science Special Report
frako writes:
Im guessing its more then just choping down the lungs of our world, if you irrigate you increase the evaporation rate of water in a region and we irrigate so much some grate rivers dont make it to the see anymore. Apart from water vapour being a greenhouse gas that helps increase the temperature of our planet we are probably also changing rainfall patterns this way.
Water vapor only has a 2 week resident time in the atmosphere, so I don't think there are any long term climate changes due to irrigation. Also, the lungs of the Earth are the oceans where marine organisms make most of the oxygen we breathe.
Using weed killers on such a scale that everything around your crops is brown earth decreases the albedo of the planet. Warming it further.
For those of us who live in the Great Basin (a high desert region in the western US) that doesn't carry much weight. The land would be brown with or without weed killer. If anything, agriculture has greened the area and reduced its albedo.
And of course transportation, we have a law that any food has to have a declaration of its origin, we get food from all over the world essentially brought to our homes, meaning we burn a lot of fosil fuels to get it there warming our planet even further.
It's hard to eat food if it is hundreds of miles away. The question is if less efficient small farms burning more fossil fuels is a better option.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by frako, posted 03-28-2018 2:23 PM frako has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024