Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9029 total)
46 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,347 Year: 1,993/14,102 Month: 361/624 Week: 82/163 Day: 2/40 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 569 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 4 of 824 (749356)
02-03-2015 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by marc9000
02-03-2015 9:24 PM


Haven't we been down this road before???

Try Message 129 and Message 146 and Message 157

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2015 9:24 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by marc9000, posted 02-04-2015 9:26 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 569 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 17 of 824 (749667)
02-07-2015 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
02-06-2015 9:35 PM


You do realize that CO2 and methane are different substances and that we don't breathe out methane, don't you?? And "humanities' current methane release" would include methane from landfills and cattle yards. Breathing DOES produce CO2, that is correct. And yes breathing contributes to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. BUT, plants fix that CO2 into sugars and then we eat those plants (or we eat animals that eat plants) and our bodies use that sugar as a carbon source to provide energy and growth. So we take in more carbon than we release as CO2, which means the NET effect on atmospheric CO2 is negative.

The problem is that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and the way we mass produce meat in this country contributes significantly to methane production. Grass fed cattle don't produce as much methane as grain fed cattle and we have huge feedlots of grain-fed cattle. Also, as I mentioned, huge quantities of methane are released by landfills as the garbage decomposes. Some landfill companies are actually tapping into this and using it to produce energy.

No one that knows anything about climate change denies the contribution of methane to global warming.

There are several ways other than breathing, that humans produce carbon dioxide. Including ways to keep warm in winter.

Wow. Of course there are other ways that humans produce CO2 besides breathing, that's the whole point. We heat our homes with a carbon source that has been sequestered under ground from millions of years. Releasing that carbon source as CO2 and CH4 is what is causing a NET increase in atmospheric carbon.

So now it sounds as if you agree that humans are the major contributor to global warming.

you represent the knee-jerk childishness of much of the scientific community very well.

Are you really the appropriate one to be pointing fingers?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2015 9:35 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by marc9000, posted 02-08-2015 7:09 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 569 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 18 of 824 (749669)
02-07-2015 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by marc9000
02-06-2015 9:26 PM


then COOLING is the only thing that could solve the problem, right?

There has been some discussion as to ways to artificially cool the planet, but they are just too uncertain as to what side effects they might have. I personally hope that they aren't trying any of those techniques yet.

I'm kinda surprised you don't buy into this conspiracy theory that the government is using chemtrails to spray chemicals that reduce global temperatures.

They're ethics, they're political, and the scientific community can butt the hell out,

It's the scientific community that said "hey, we have a problem here." And at first met with stiff resistance. But through continuing efforts and by verifying the data and conclusions they were making, slowly people began to wake up and realize that what the scientific community was saying was real and that we need to respond to it.

unless they can show some accountability and be much more transparent about how they get their measurements.

I outline some of that in a previous thread, but you ignored it. Human activity is the primary source of atmospheric carbon and that human activity is contributing significantly to global climate change. That case is now a slam dunk. It just can no longer be denied by anyone by the most stubborn.

You are right in pointing out the demands we have as consumers for energy consumption. This is one of the things that culturally needs to change. We need to be aware of the ways we waste energy and be willing to change our lifestyles to reduce the amount of energy we consume. So yes, there is a huge cultural component to this issue.

There is also a huge political component to the issue. Politicians are primarily concerned about getting re-elected, so they won't take any action that might hurt their support base. Their is also the unwillingness of the two parties to agree on what action to take, both parties simply wanting to take the opposite stance of the other, so government action is constantly in a stalemate, with only tiny shifts one way or the other as power changes back and forth.

Cap and trade and carbon credits is a terrible idea, but it's the only thing anyone was willing to do so it is better than nothing. And yes, some people are going to make money from it, so what? Some people are going to make money from developing alternative sources of energy. Good for them. That is what drives progress, unfortunately.

Science is kind of stepping back now. What else can they do? The case has been made and it is very well supported. Now it is up to the cultural and political forces to take action. Humans have made a mess of this world and it is time for us to do something about it.

One thing the scientific community is doing now is beginning to shift our thinking from "is the climate changing?" to "how do we react to climate change?" Since it is inevitable that global temperatures will rise significantly in the next 50 years, we are looking at not so much how to stop it, but how to live with it. For example, plant breeders are looking at developing crops that will be better suited for the changing climate.

Marc, the debate about climate change is over. It is real and it is serious. The debate about how to respond is what lies before us.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2015 9:26 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by marc9000, posted 02-08-2015 8:11 PM herebedragons has responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 569 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 37 of 824 (749877)
02-09-2015 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by marc9000
02-08-2015 8:11 PM


Sorry marc, really busy. I shouldn't even be on here right now... I have more important things I should be focused on. So I will just address a couple of things real quick.

I wonder why Richard Muller didn't mention methane in the vid in the o/p? At the end of the vid, he seemed pretty adamant that carbon dioxide was IT.

Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas molecule for molecule, but the amounts are small compared to CO2. CO2 is the predominate greenhouse gas - that is it is the gas that is having the largest greenhouse effect overall.

What is the difference between climate change and global warming? The two terms seem to be used interchangeably.

Yea, the terms are used kind of interchangeably. Climate change is actually the more accurate description. As some one pointed out (RAZD I think) that on a global scale, temperature is rising but some areas are actually cooling. The reason that climate change is a better descriptor is that what we are seeing is a shifting in climatic conditions on a global scale.

So you admit that it is ethics, politics, and NOT SCIENCE?

No. Science is neutral in regard to ethics and politics. Science identified a problem. How we as humans respond to that problem is dependent on ethics and politics. So there is the science of climate change and the politics and ethics of climate change.

What have YOU done personally? Is there anything in your lifestyle that's going to change to help address it?

I have installed a 96% efficiency furnace which cut my natural gas usage by about 30%. I keep my thermostat at 64F when we are not home and 68F when we are home. I plan to continue to improve the energy efficiency of my house. Although our situation is such that we must have 2 cars, both of our cars are as small as we can get away with.

I have only a couple incandescent bulbs left in my house (because they can't be replace with CFLs), and I am slowly converting those to LEDs (which are still quite expensive). I recycle everything I can, including composting. I plan to install rain barrels this summer to reduce my usage of municipal water.

I know that's not a whole heck of a lot, but its what I can do at this time.

One more degree? Two? What is the projection? Numbers please.

Estimates vary, but even 2 degrees is a significant change on an annual, global scale (remember we are talking about degrees Celsius). Try the following charts as a more extreme projection - that is if we continue to increase global CO2 production at the current rate (not maintain the current levels but maintain the current growth rate).

These projections suggest that January temperatures will rise 11oC in some areas (the Arctic mostly) by 2050. That's huge!!!

Now, I think we need to be careful about "doom-and-gloom" projections. But it seems really clear that we need to adjust our course.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by marc9000, posted 02-08-2015 8:11 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by marc9000, posted 02-10-2015 7:39 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 569 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 38 of 824 (749878)
02-09-2015 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by marc9000
02-09-2015 9:30 PM


Oh how I hate it when people get their science from Facebook. I don't think I have seen a scientifically accurate meme yet!!!

One quote in this really bothers me

quote:
that the temperature of this and every other planet is controlled by the hand of the Creator and that it is arrogant for man to think he could assume that role for either bad or good purposes.

This is the height of ignorance. Let me put this in a different light. Would it be okay for me to pour dry-cleaning fluid (perchlorate) on the ground behind my business? Would it be okay to pour my used cutting oils from my manufacturing facility into the local river? Would it be okay for me to dump mine tailings from my coal mine in your residential area?

NO?

But I think that the health of this planet is controlled by the hand of the Creator and it is arrogant of man to think that he is powerful enough to pollute God's green earth.

How would that go over??

This FB post is the poster child of climate change ignorance. How can you possibly think that this writer made a case against global warming??

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2015 9:30 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by marc9000, posted 02-10-2015 8:40 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 569 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 269 of 824 (788857)
08-06-2016 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by foreveryoung
08-04-2016 9:47 PM


I take this to mean that man made additions of carbon dioxide warm the planet. Where is your proof?

I posted this a couple years ago as Message 157 It is a simply explanation of the evidence we have for anthropomorphic climate change.

quote:
Empirical evidence for an anthropomorphic source of global warming:

1. There has been a gradual decrease in the amount of energy that is being radiated back into space, as measured from satellites, while the input from the sun has not changed very much.

2. Greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, water vapor, and O3) can absorb and emit infrared radiation. This ability allows heat to become trapped in the atmosphere and not escape back into space. O2 and N2 are not affected by these wavelengths, and so are not considered greenhouse gases. Thus we have a verifiable mechanism by which heat can be trapped in the atmosphere.

3. Based on bubbles trapped in ice cores, the atmospheric CO2 level before the start of the industrial revolution was about 280 ppm. Now the atmospheric level of CO2 is nearly 400 ppm, a 43% increase in the last 150 years (which corresponds to the time that humans have been burning fossil fuels in significant amounts).

4. Each of the greenhouse gases trap unique wavelengths of energy. Most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths absorbed by CO2.


This is just simply no question that human activity, primarily the release of CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, is causing climate change. Absolutely no question. How much is human activity contributing to climate change? Well that can still be debated. Personally, I would say greater than 50%, probably closer to 80%.

But whatever the percentage, we need to reduce our emissions. I am not one of the extremists who envision doom and gloom by the year 2050 if we don't completely switch to alternative sources immediately. But I do believe we have been exploiting the earth's resources and not incurring the full costs of those resources. Are you familiar with the concept of externalization (or externality)? It is when the cost of a good or service is borne by a party that did not choose to incur that cost. An example would be a $5 tee shirt that was made in Bangladesh (or wherever), you can get that shirt so cheap because the true cost of it has been externalized. Perhaps the working conditions and pay are very poor. Perhaps the dyes they use on the fabric are toxic, but the workers aren't given personal protective equipment. Those costs which should be included in the cost of the tee shirt are instead incurred by the workers in the form of poor health and awful living and working conditions.

Energy has worked the same way. The environmental costs of cheap energy have been externalized to future generations. Our children and their children are going to be paying for our and our parents cheap energy. It is time to make a change.

Let's just hope that whatever new technology comes along to replace fossil fuels isn't treated the same way - as a cheap alternative that we can defer the actual cost to future generations or under-developed nations.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by foreveryoung, posted 08-04-2016 9:47 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 569 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 360 of 824 (799666)
02-13-2017 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by foreveryoung
02-12-2017 12:16 PM


Co2 is said to trap heat. No its not the molecule trapping the heat

It is not that CO2 molecule holds the heat, it is that it prevents it from escaping back into space. This is known to be true by direct experimental measurements.

I find this chart rather convincing:

Source: Baird, C and Cann, M (2008) Environmental chemistry. W.H. Freeman and CO.

The green line represents the IR light energy that is emitted from the earth's surface and should theoretically escape back to space unless there is something that is absorbing it and blocking its escape.

The black line is the experimentally measured intensity of the thermal IR radiation leaving the earth's atmosphere.

CO2 has maximum absorbance in the 4 - 5 um range and the 14 - 16 um range. The range of absorbance of various gases is indicated on the chart above.

Over half of the energy in the 14 -16 um range that should be radiated back into space is not making it and that frequency coincides with the wavelength that CO2 absorbs. Coincidence?

nitrogen and oxygen are trapping the heat until they transfer the heat back to co2 higher in the atmosphere.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. N2 and O2 do not absorb IR radiation.

Actually, higher levels of co2 higher in the atmosphere acts to cool the atmosphere.

Do you have anything to support this statement with, like maybe data?

Again false. No new energy added.

Energy is being added by the sun, is it not? So without energy being able to leave the system, we would continually heat up (see Venus). There IS energy being added to the system but the system is not reflecting the heat back into space efficiently enough. So what is preventing heat from escaping? See chart above.

What you are saying is the co2 molecules emit radiation and are reabsorbed by other co2 molecules without effect to the rest of the atmosphere when the data doesn't support that.

Do you have this "data"?

What the data supports is that energy is not returning to space and instead is becoming trapped in the earth's system. The change in the amount of heat escaping earth's atmosphere has been directly measured. So, regardless of where it is in the system, the overall system is increasing in energy ie. temperature. This is all really, really well established science. There is no need for "opinions" or "alternate facts"... The quantity of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere which is causing less heat to be radiated to space causing our climate to warm.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : used superscripts for chemical names instead of subscripts, had to change it quick before anyone saw it and thinks I am a dummy. Hope I didn't miss any.


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by foreveryoung, posted 02-12-2017 12:16 PM foreveryoung 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 © 2021