Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
44 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 42 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,688 Year: 9,436/23,288 Month: 451/1,544 Week: 165/561 Day: 5/63 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global warming - fact or conspiracy?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 61 of 111 (325594)
06-24-2006 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by johnfolton
06-23-2006 2:22 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
JF writes:

We have a lot of coal that we could burn to increase the carbon dioxide and nitrate levels. We don't need to mass cut forests that could be selective cut.

Why on Earth would we want to do this? Even if, as you say GH gases are not a primary mover in climate change (a conclusion not held by research independently funded) it will still increase global temperature with all the consequences that that will bring.

JF writes:

If the sun is the culprit heating the biggest heat trap (the oceans of the world) then greenhouse gases is simply a drop in the bucket.

So not knowing wheather the sun is the biggest culprit or not you still advocate the above?

Good grief!

JF writes:

What happens if the sun cools off over decades instead of its present heating phase. Would not the oceans temps drop simply because the sun cooled off just a bit.

If? I refer you to the above.

JF writes:

Its well known that greenhouses use (carbon dioxide) to conserve water and stimulate plant growth.

References please.

JF writes:

Building coal power plants all across the country is not a bad idea if greenhouse gases are not the root cause for global warming.

If, if, if........

Need I go on?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 2:22 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 4476 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 62 of 111 (325629)
06-24-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by EZscience
06-22-2006 2:02 PM


Re: Grants are plentiful for global warming research
EZ writes:

(in reply to TC's "You don't think there isn't bias on both sides?") No, I don't think so.


With that statement, you show ignorance. Of course there is bias on both sides. There wouldn't be "both" sides if there weren't bias on both sides. It's ok to be biased. It is the fuel for debate. It's whether the scientific community as a whole listens to both sides of the biased advocates. This is the ugly and beautiful way science distills ideas into believable theories.

The bias againstbelief in GW is created by business interests that don't want to see their profit margins shrink. There is no direct profit motive or material gain to be had for publicly funded scientists for pointing out that our current activities are changing the planet for the worse.

Bad conclusion. Profit is not the only motive for bias. Good science needs checks and balances. Another motive (both sides of GW debate)is personal ego-driven scientific recognition. And, don't forget that there are evil business rivals to big oil, and they have incentive for bringing down their rivals enough to sell their own goods (or in the case of some folks, their books and movies). There seems to be plenty of grant money going to GW folks. I guess this is not your definition of "profit".

So you admit that China is currently prospering at the environment's expense? Kind of like we have for the last 70 years?

Yes. But that has nothing to do with my point. Besides, I love preservation (not conservation) of large-scale natural man-minimized environments.

When is it going to become incumbent on us to lead by example? You would have us continue as usual because others are doing the same?

I would love to keep Brazilians from chopping all the Amazon trees down, but "leading by example" by not chopping my backyard's trees down will not stop them. The same is true with energy consumption, IMO.

This is precisely the mind-set that leads to a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario. In case you are not familiar with it, it derives from medeival England where the townsfolk all grazed their animals on shared lands, or 'commons'.

Don't forget the Anasazi Indians at Mesa Verde!
You seem to conclude that I am in favor of that. Erroneous and incorrect conclusion. Besides, killing-off species and destroying habitats was still an issue before GW became popular. Ultimately, this pits the poor (who want the resources) vs the rich, the haves vs have-nots. I am in favor of population control as an approach, but darned if I know how to ethically make that happen world-wide.

Your argument is a typically conservative one and merely a shallow justification for selfish behavior and disregard for environmental stewardship and the quality of life that future generations will inherit.

Cart before horse again, EZ. Before you accuse me and conservatives of selfishness on this issue, you need to have a convincing case that humans are the cause. You don't. Rather than belly-ache, have all the biased scientists from both sides hash it out.

Let me say this. If you want to see something 'economy-crippling' just watch us stay the present course, because the American economy won't just be crippled by the consequences of global warming, it will eventually collapse to a mere shadow of its former self.

American economy is collapsing, but it will have nothing to do with GW. The invasion from the south, the socialistic benefits, the debt, the outsourcing of work, the legal quagmire for business, and some other things are enough to bring us down. The illegal alien issue is already a time-bomb waiting to cripple us with benefit costs once they become citizens.

As a proponent of evolution, you have a pathetically poor perspective on the consequences of human influences on its processes.

Look, I am being a bit sarcastic, but chalk that up to my practical sense that there is nothing we really have control over.
OK, EZ, since you need to be told sarcasm... warning! sarcasm follows: By causing mass-extinction, we are opening the door of opportunity for species variation to express itself in different ways. This has been a hypothesis from evolutionary scientists.

See any desirable species evolving in human-modified ecosystems?

Snap out of it!! You are starting to make arguments like a Creationist!


'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by EZscience, posted 06-22-2006 2:02 PM EZscience has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by nwr, posted 06-24-2006 10:30 AM ThingsChange has responded
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2006 10:39 AM ThingsChange has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Larni, posted 06-24-2006 6:21 PM ThingsChange has not yet responded
 Message 84 by EZscience, posted 06-26-2006 1:05 PM ThingsChange has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 63 of 111 (325638)
06-24-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by ThingsChange
06-24-2006 10:02 AM


Re: Grants are plentiful for global warming research
EZ writes:

(in reply to TC's "You don't think there isn't bias on both sides?") No, I don't think so.


With that statement, you show ignorance. Of course there is bias on both sides. There wouldn't be "both" sides if there weren't bias on both sides. It's ok to be biased. It is the fuel for debate. It's whether the scientific community as a whole listens to both sides of the biased advocates. This is the ugly and beautiful way science distills ideas into believable theories.

I am wondering where you get your ideas about science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ThingsChange, posted 06-24-2006 10:02 AM ThingsChange has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ThingsChange, posted 06-26-2006 12:48 AM nwr has responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 111 (325640)
06-24-2006 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by ThingsChange
06-24-2006 10:02 AM


Re: Grants are plentiful for global warming research
There wouldn't be "both" sides if there weren't bias on both sides.

So, truth is the same as lies? Those who advance the truth are just as biased as those who promote lies?

You need to stop watching Fox News. "Balance" is not something to strive for; accuracy is. You don't balance the truth with lies. You don't need to present "both sides" when one side is truth and the other side is fiction.

There seems to be plenty of grant money going to GW folks. I guess this is not your definition of "profit".

Do you know what a grant is?

It's not "here's a big sack of cash money; don't spend it all at once place."

Spending that money is a lot of work. A lot of headache. A whole lot of people are always looking over your shoulder and counting the receipts. You don't even usually get paid out of your grant.

The idea that a scientist would fudge the data, or lie, just to get some grant money is ridiculous on its face. They don't get to spend it on cars and jewelry. Getting a grant isn't getting a blank check; it's more like when the boss sends you down to pick up lunch for everybody. You don't get to get the lunch you want; you have to pick up the lunch that you think everybody else would like and that isn't going to cost a whole lot. At best, if you do it right, nobody cares. At worst if you get the wrong lunch everybody's pissed. It's thankless. Grant money's just about the same.

On the other hand...

The profits you get from being an oil shareholder are free money. You can do whatever you want! Go to Paris? Sure. Plasma-screen TV? Get two! Coke and hooker parties? Print up the invitations.

Now, you tell me where the profit motive lies?

Look, I am being a bit sarcastic, but chalk that up to my practical sense that there is nothing we really have control over.

Now, this I think you're right about. There's just far too many people who won't be convinced no matter what evidence.

Honestly? I think we'd be much more successful trying to prepare for the consequences of runaway climate instead of trying to stop it. Probably too late, at this point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ThingsChange, posted 06-24-2006 10:02 AM ThingsChange has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4142 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 65 of 111 (325706)
06-24-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by kuresu
06-23-2006 11:53 PM


Re: Elevated Co2 (greenhouse gases)
In the ocean Co2 is sequestered from the atmosphere and forms precipitates. This is how our limestone, chalk, marble deposits formed.

I've heard massive algae blooms were caused by low Co2, never heard they were caused by high levels of Co2.

* references below

As carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, an equilibrium is established involving the carbonate ion, CO32¯. The carbonate anion interacts with cations in seawater. According to the solubility rules, "all carbonates are insoluble except those of ammonium and Group IA elements." Therefore, the carbonate ions cause the precipitation of certain ions. For example, Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions precipitate from large bodies of water as carbonates. For CaCO3, the value of Ksp is 5 × 10¯9, and for MgCO3, Ksp is 2 × 10¯3. Extensive deposits of limestone (CaCO3) and dolomite (mixed CaCO3 and MgCO3) have been formed in this way. Calcium carbonate is also the main constituent of marble, chalk, pearls, coral reefs, and clam shells.

http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/CO2/CO2.html

Adding additional light without CO2, however, can lead to massive algae blooms... not fun. If you must choose between either CO2 or light... go CO2 first.

Aquaria Central - which comes first: the lighting or the CO2?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by kuresu, posted 06-23-2006 11:53 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by kuresu, posted 06-24-2006 2:24 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 67 by kuresu, posted 06-24-2006 2:27 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Larni, posted 06-24-2006 6:56 PM johnfolton has responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 66 of 111 (325709)
06-24-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by johnfolton
06-24-2006 2:14 PM


Re: Elevated Co2 (greenhouse gases)
you were the one that claimed that more CO2 leads to increased plant growth, (due to a link with photosynthesis). It is therefore logical to sya that, increase CO2, and you will increase algae numbers, until there is a new limiting factor on the growth (like a lack of iron).

Is it a good thing to increase marble production in the ocean? You forgot to mention that the carbonic acid increases the acidity of the surface water. Now then, what happens to highly snesitive organisms when you change the acidity? If it kills a good chunk of the algea, we're all screwed.

Point is, we don't need 600ppm CO2. We don't even need 330 ppm CO2. World did just fine without that much. I say bring the level down to at most 300 ppm. Unfortunately, you don't see a problem with 600 ppm CO2. There is a major problem once it starts screwing over the oceans. Point in case--last year's hurricanes were more intense because of global warming. The latest study looked at the effect global warming was having on the natural cycles of the hurricane intensity. While el nino was mostly to blame, the AMO (or is it ALO?) the fluctuating cycle of temperature in the atlantic, played an almost insignificant role in the hurricane intensity. Rita, Wilma, and Katrina were due to el nino and global warming. Thank you CO2.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 06-24-2006 2:14 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 67 of 111 (325711)
06-24-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by johnfolton
06-24-2006 2:14 PM


Re: Elevated Co2 (greenhouse gases)
This is how our limestone, chalk, marble deposits formed

Try again. They are the key ingredients in those materials, but it is the organisms that take up the carbonic acid (coral reefs, shellfish, most likely others) that make those. Limestone and chalk are directly formed from dead shellfish shells.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 06-24-2006 2:14 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by anglagard, posted 06-24-2006 3:21 PM kuresu has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2227
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 68 of 111 (325721)
06-24-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by kuresu
06-24-2006 2:27 PM


Re: Elevated Co2 (greenhouse gases)
quote:
Limestone and chalk are directly formed from dead shellfish shells.

Not entirely correct, some limestone is chemical, not biological in origin, which is why not all limestone contains fossils.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by kuresu, posted 06-24-2006 2:27 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by kuresu, posted 06-24-2006 3:23 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 69 of 111 (325723)
06-24-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by anglagard
06-24-2006 3:21 PM


Re: Elevated Co2 (greenhouse gases)
True, but that still invalidates the claim that ALL limestone and chalk and marble are created by the CO2 in the ocean.

Thanks for the correction.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anglagard, posted 06-24-2006 3:21 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 70 of 111 (325729)
06-24-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ragged
06-20-2006 1:06 AM


End of the world...and Chicago!!
The link below will take you to a website that collects "end of the world Scenarios", few of which address climate trouble and global warming.

http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

Look under the scenario titled "Boil!", which talks about the "runaway Greenhouse effect. Very frightening.


"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ragged, posted 06-20-2006 1:06 AM Ragged has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1443 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 71 of 111 (325767)
06-24-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by johnfolton
06-23-2006 10:38 PM


Re: Elevated Co2 (greenhouse gases)
The greater surface area naturally would draw more water from the soil, but not excessively due to the closing down of the stoma's.

You are quite wrong about that. The stoma are not going to stay closed all of the time and greater leaf surface area means more stoma. Plants with a lot of leaf surface area suffer more greatly during a drought than plants with less leaf surface area, regardless of carbon dioxide levels. That is a fact. That is why desert plants don't have leaves but instead have spines and needles. Also higher photosynthetic rates associated with greater leaf area will use more water so the plant needs more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 10:38 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 72 of 111 (325768)
06-24-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ThingsChange
06-24-2006 10:02 AM


Re: Grants are plentiful for global warming research
ThingsChange writes:

It's whether the scientific community as a whole listens to both sides of the biased advocates. This is the ugly and beautiful way science distills ideas into believable theories.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Science is not a democracy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ThingsChange, posted 06-24-2006 10:02 AM ThingsChange has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 73 of 111 (325784)
06-24-2006 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by johnfolton
06-24-2006 2:14 PM


Runaway Feedback
Take a look at the following. It's not like we increase CO2 and watch simply and incremental rise in temperature. When we reach about +8 degrees celcius the Methane Hydrate in the sea and river deltas melt, the Amazon starts to burn and up goes your carbon sink. All that and we go up to about + 15 degrees celcius fast.

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/1_global_warming.htm

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm

Methane is 40 times the green house gas that CO2 is.

Take a look at what can happen if global temperatures rise to far; are you familiar with the Permian Extinction Event?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828440526.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24732-2005Jan20.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223130549.htm

95% of life gone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 06-24-2006 2:14 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 06-24-2006 11:22 PM Larni has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4142 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 74 of 111 (325923)
06-24-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Larni
06-24-2006 6:56 PM


Re: Runaway Feedback
I don't share your fear of increasing Co2, methane, causing global warming. I however agree the cottail of gases including methane is
contributing gases into the water vapor in the atmosphere is all a part of the canopy absorbing heat radiated from the earth.

Is oxygen nitrogen a greater contributor than Co2 to global warming or is these gases simply absorbing their heat from the water vapor and not directly from the earth.

I thought pressures is the main reason why methane hyrates crystalize. Its similar why they pump Co2 into oil wells and it does not return to the surface because of the pressure.

You'd think that rising ocean levels are a good thing because it will help keep these methane hydrates from burping bigtime if its based on pressure. A good reason for the earth to melt the polar caps to keep these massive methane hydrates contained, better to flood the coastlines than burn the planet bigtime. ;)

In a desert with no clouds the nights are cold and the days hot. I suspect all gases without water vapor does nothing to promote global warming.

I suspect given the massive amounts of heat given off from a hurricane moisture condensing that water vapor is the biggest contributor to global warming next to the suns solar cycles.

Is the water canopy causing global warming because of the solar cycles presently heating up the waters of the earth.

Is it the water vapor capturing the heat radiated from the earth and is it transfering its heat to the cottail of gases. If so then the earth is not directly heating these gases if it was the deserts would be warmer throughout the night.

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050317hutchison.htm

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Larni, posted 06-24-2006 6:56 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by kuresu, posted 06-24-2006 11:53 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 76 by kuresu, posted 06-25-2006 12:12 AM johnfolton has responded
 Message 78 by Larni, posted 06-25-2006 7:27 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 75 of 111 (325943)
06-24-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by johnfolton
06-24-2006 11:22 PM


Re: Runaway Feedback
while the CO2 might stay in the oil wells due to pressure (I'm not sure on this--oil engineering is not something I'm familiar with), methane hydrates are formed by temperature. While initially thought to exist only on the fringes of the solar system, we have found them at the bottom of the oceans and other places--whereever the methane gas streams meats cold water. All it really is is methane gas trapped in ice.

In order for pressure to be responsible for keeping water a solid, there would have to be incredible pressure--probably comparable to that used for making diamonds.

On this you are wrong. Gases can retain heat. In fact, any matter can retain heat. Ever wonder why the road is hot? Water holds heat better than a lot of things. It does it even better than methane, which is one of the more worse global warming gases. It retains heat about 40 times more than CO2 does, or some number to the effect.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 06-24-2006 11:22 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020