The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-04-2013, 01:17 PM   #201
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I know, right. Roh makes it sound just like Santie Claus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Everybody who refuses to believe in global climate change


Problem is, believing in 'global climate change' is like believing in water. Climate changes. Significantly. It always has, and for the most part, we have a very poor understanding why. It's the nature of the beast.

In many ways, Global Warming Scientology can be thought of as a kind of global narcissism. If Earth doesn't lock itself in stasis from the first moment we became really able to measure something on a global scale, we reach out and latch onto anything we might've done to 'cause' it. The problem is in separating out what we 'caused' from what just happens. Because very significant changes do 'just happen'

Something caused the end of an ice age up to only 10-15,000 years ago. But we don't really know what. And if we can't even really explain huge changes in the past, what exactly makes us think we have any idea what's coming in the future? This proposition that a 0.005% change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 will reliably overwhelm an ecosystem already capable of such wild swings is ridiculous.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 01:21 PM   #202
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncocalijohn View Post
Some would say that these scientist are the one with defending a religion.
Nope.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 01:25 PM   #203
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Problem is, believing in 'global climate change' is like believing in water. Climate changes. Significantly. It always has, and for the most part, we have a very poor understanding why. It's the nature of the beast.
"Very poor"? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
In many ways, Global Warming Scientology can be thought of as a kind of global narcissism. If Earth doesn't lock itself in stasis from the first moment we became really able to measure something on a global scale, we reach out and latch onto anything we might've done to 'cause' it. The problem is in separating out what we 'caused' from what just happens. Because very significant changes do 'just happen'
Outside of the occasional asteroid hit, climate changes occur slowly by human measures - thousands of years for a "fast" change, hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years for a "slow" change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Something caused the end of an ice age up to only 10-15,000 years ago. But we don't really know what.
Milankovitch cycles


Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
And if we can't even really explain huge changes in the past, what exactly makes us think we have any idea what's coming in the future? This proposition that a 0.005% change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 will reliably overwhelm an ecosystem already capable of such wild swings is ridiculous.
It's not a "0.005%" change - it's a 40% change in about 150 years. That's a huge change.

W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 02:12 PM   #204
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
It's not really that simple. Theories are still just theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age...ice_age_theory



Quote:
It's not a "0.005%" change - it's a 40% change in about 150 years. That's a huge change.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration went from 0.035% to 0.04% That's a .005% change in overall atmospheric concentration. Concentration is what matters. Not some arbitrary growth rate. For comparison... as a (more significant) GHG, methane has grown at a much much faster rate. But methane's concentration (the important part) is far lower. Which is why CO2 gets all the buzz. Your "growth" number is trying to have it both ways. Otherwise your war should be on Cows.

Quote:
I know this is always a fan favorite, but I could show an even more alarming chart detailing the number of McDonalds' franchises worldwide over the same time period.

A happening as B happened does nothing to prove that A caused B.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 03:11 PM   #205
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It's not really that simple. Theories are still just theories.
Quote:
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').
You're using "theory" in the 2nd bolded sense above, I'm using it in the 1st bolded sense.

The giveaway is your use of "just".

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Atmospheric CO2 concentration went from 0.035% to 0.04% That's a .005% change in overall atmospheric concentration.
It went from 280 ppm to 400 ppm - a 40% increase. Seeing as how CO2 concentrations haven't been above ~300ppm in the last 800,000 years (at least), we're in uncharted territory for us as a species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Concentration is what matters. Not some arbitrary growth rate. For comparison... as a (more significant) GHG, methane has grown at a much much faster rate. But methane's concentration (the important part) is far lower. Which is why CO2 gets all the buzz. Your "growth" number is trying to have it both ways. Otherwise your war should be on Cows.
There isn't enough CH4 in the atmosphere at this time to keep the surface temperature annual average above 0℃ - that's CO2's job. Without that CO2, eventually the oceans freeze solid all the way to the bottom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
I know this is always a fan favorite, but I could show an even more alarming chart detailing the number of McDonalds' franchises worldwide over the same time period.
The number of McDonald's doesn't change the energy balance of the climate system. CO2 concentration does, very strongly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
A happening as B happened does nothing to prove that A caused B.
If you don't think CO2 has anything to do with the energy balance, then you must also think the earth is flat.


Estimate of the Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance. Over the long term, the amount of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere is balanced by the Earth and atmosphere releasing the same amount of outgoing longwave radiation. About half of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. This energy is transferred to the atmosphere by warming the air in contact with the surface (thermals), by evapotranspiration and by longwave radiation that is absorbed by clouds and greenhouse gases. The atmosphere in turn radiates longwave energy back to Earth as well as out to space. Source: Kiehl and Trenberth (1997).
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 03:17 PM   #206
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-back...ng-co2-levels/
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 03:21 PM   #207
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
Already saw that crap.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 03:24 PM   #208
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

so everybody else's links are crap, but anybody that doesnt bow down to the gospel you preach is crazy

gotcha
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 03:31 PM   #209
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
so everybody else's links are crap, but anybody that doesnt bow down to the gospel you preach is crazy

gotcha
These are not equal:

International Association of Geodesy

and

The Flat Earth Society
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 03:32 PM   #210
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
There isn't enough CH4 in the atmosphere at this time to keep the surface temperature annual average above 0℃ - that's CO2's job..
Actually it's mostly H2O's job (by a factor of thousands). CO2 is just a supporting actor playing a side role. How much so is the difficult part to answer.


Quote:
The number of McDonald's doesn't change the energy balance of the climate system. CO2 concentration does, very strongly.
Untrue. McDonalds has an effect on the energy balance of the climate system. That can't be denied. The question (much like with CO2) is how much.

Quote:
If you don't think CO2 has anything to do with the energy balance, then you must also think the earth is flat.
yawn
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 04:15 PM   #211
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,517
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Well, most people advocate for one inch of fish per gallon of tank water. So you do the math.

Since we haven't even identified all the fish in the sea yet, I'm guessing that count is low by few hundred billion or so. The annual catch of herring equals about 307,000 tons per year, so...
I'm only talking about humans since we are focused on man-made climate change. Humans passed our capacity a long time ago. The earth can't support 7 billion people without degrading the environment.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 04:23 PM   #212
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Actually it's mostly H2O's job (by a factor of thousands). CO2 is just a supporting actor playing a side role. How much so is the difficult part to answer.
Water vapor isn't well-mixed, is easily saturated and precipitates out, and has a very short lifetime.

CO2 is well-mixed, cannot precipitate out, and has a very long lifetime.

Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

The ratio of radiative "effectiveness" isn't "thousands".
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 05:05 PM   #213
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,888

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
I'm only talking about humans since we are focused on man-made climate change. Humans passed our capacity a long time ago. The earth can't support 7 billion people without degrading the environment.
Yep.

The reef tank analogy just points out that we will not kill the planet. We may end up with an ocean full of nothing but jellyfish and algae, but it will still be an ocean. Right?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 07:20 PM   #214
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Water vapor isn't well-mixed, is easily saturated and precipitates out, and has a very short lifetime.

CO2 is well-mixed, cannot precipitate out, and has a very long lifetime.

Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

The ratio of radiative "effectiveness" isn't "thousands".
The vapor's lifetime doesn't make any difference so long as the global concentration remains the same. One water molecule being replaced by another does nothing to alleviate the overall heat-trapping effect.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 02:31 AM   #215
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,812
Default

So what can we do to mitigate the changes? Lets face it, the Earths co2 levels won't be dropping soon, or maybe ever. If the Earth even managed to level off it would be an accomplishment that I quite frankly don't see adding up.

People talk a lot about climate change and how to put out less co2 but you dont hear much about if places are going to flood more, IE our big rivers, coastal areas, are we planning on how to protect them? maybe we should think about big water storage resevoirs those rivers can divert water into. having more water stored would be smart anyways right. It would be hella expensive but will al gore cool the Earth in time to not need it?

There could big money to be made in technologies that help adapt to a warming Earth.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 02:32 AM   #216
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,812
Default

W*gs by what yr do you think the world will start decreasing the amount of co2. Do you have a guess? does anyone?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 03:24 AM   #217
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
all fine and dandy, you dont like the link, but while I'm no scientist I do remember that plants breathe CO2, so having more of it would be a good thing if we want more plants no ?

Farmers have been pumping greenhouses full of CO2 for years. The government here actually teaches how to do it http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...cts/00-077.htm I know its not as good as the site you listed, but really dood
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 06:58 AM   #218
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
all fine and dandy, you dont like the link, but while I'm no scientist I do remember that plants breathe CO2, so having more of it would be a good thing if we want more plants no ?
CO2 isn't the limiting factor in plant growth. There's precipitation, temperature, seasonality (winters are shortening and summers lengthening), soil nutrients, pollinators, etc., etc.

Besides, it's not like only the plants we want will grow more with more CO2 - weeds will too.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 07:09 AM   #219
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,888

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
CO2 isn't the limiting factor in plant growth. There's precipitation, temperature, seasonality (winters are shortening and summers lengthening), soil nutrients, pollinators, etc., etc.

Besides, it's not like only the plants we want will grow more with more CO2 - weeds will too.
All we need to do is learn to enjoy eating weeds. It's the Right Wing solution.

Dr. ZISKA: One of the things that we think is occurring is that as carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere - carbon dioxide, as everyone knows, is a basic greenhouse gas, but it's also plant food. And plants take that carbon, and they convert it into sugars and carbohydrates and so forth.

But not all plants respond the same way to that resource, and we think that vines, particularly vines like poison ivy or kudzu or other noxious weeds, seem to show a much stronger response to the change in CO2 than other plant species. So on average, the poison ivy plant of, say, 1901, can grow up to 50 to 60 percent larger as of 2010 just from the change in CO2 alone, all other things being equal.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=128650169

Not only do some food plants, like wheat, actually decline under increased CO2, plant eating insects seem to proliferate. So, we'll need to add them to our diet as well.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Mmmmm. Weeds, bugs and jellyfish. What's on the Barby?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 07:16 AM   #220
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The vapor's lifetime doesn't make any difference so long as the global concentration remains the same. One water molecule being replaced by another does nothing to alleviate the overall heat-trapping effect.
As CO2 increases, the atmosphere warms and can hold more H2O. It's a positive feedback.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 08:25 AM   #221
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
As CO2 increases, the atmosphere warms and can hold more H2O. It's a positive feedback.
All true. But everything is a question of how much. Your ass gas is a global warming positive feedback. Establishing that fact doesn't mean we should automatically staple your hole closed.

In th real world, the open questions are:

How significant is CO2 to overall greenhouse gas cycle and
How does the earth respond to increased atmospheric CO2 and Water Vapor.

In conjunction, these questions are very difficult to answer. Because they play with and against each other (and millions of other factors) in ways we don't fully understand.

But in the meantime, even if the US liquidated itself and stopped producing CO2 altogether, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the CO2 being produced or about to be produced worldwide.

So in summary... the bad news... you're not going to meaningfully impact global CO2 concentration with any number of political schemes. If emissions decline it will likely be because of either a global economic downturn or a slowing of population growth.

And the good news... There are reasons to believe that the effects of higher CO2 concentrations aren't going to be nearly as catastrophic as they were once made out to be (and still made out to be by some)

The biggest doomsday models have been shown to be hopelessly inaccurate already. Yes, just like any crackpot apocalypse-predictor, they'll revise their 'model' to say that "sure doom didn't show up yesterday like I predicted, but it's still coming next Month! Unless you do exactly as I tell you!"

But they have no power to affect anything on a global scale. Only to potentially convince a nation or two to screw themselves while the rest of the world laughs it off.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 11:01 AM   #222
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,517
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
No need to post the flat earth society. Nobody believes that. Most of us believe that a problem exists, but we disagree on the solution. I don't think any of your solutions are realistic to implement.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 11:46 AM   #223
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,888

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
All true. But everything is a question of how much. Your ass gas is a global warming positive feedback. Establishing that fact doesn't mean we should automatically staple your hole closed.

In th real world, the open questions are:

How significant is CO2 to overall greenhouse gas cycle and
How does the earth respond to increased atmospheric CO2 and Water Vapor.

In conjunction, these questions are very difficult to answer. Because they play with and against each other (and millions of other factors) in ways we don't fully understand.

But in the meantime, even if the US liquidated itself and stopped producing CO2 altogether, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the CO2 being produced or about to be produced worldwide.

So in summary... the bad news... you're not going to meaningfully impact global CO2 concentration with any number of political schemes. If emissions decline it will likely be because of either a global economic downturn or a slowing of population growth.

And the good news... There are reasons to believe that the effects of higher CO2 concentrations aren't going to be nearly as catastrophic as they were once made out to be (and still made out to be by some)

The biggest doomsday models have been shown to be hopelessly inaccurate already. Yes, just like any crackpot apocalypse-predictor, they'll revise their 'model' to say that "sure doom didn't show up yesterday like I predicted, but it's still coming next Month! Unless you do exactly as I tell you!"

But they have no power to affect anything on a global scale. Only to potentially convince a nation or two to screw themselves while the rest of the world laughs it off.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 12:36 PM   #224
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
No need to post the flat earth society. Nobody believes that. Most of us believe that a problem exists, but we disagree on the solution. I don't think any of your solutions are realistic to implement.
What solutions have I proposed?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 12:46 PM   #225
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
What solutions have I proposed?
Carbon trading?

http://www.economist.com/news/busine...pe-fuel-future

Quote:
Undeterred, Drax, also in Britain and one of Europe’s largest coal-fired power stations, said it would convert three of its six boilers to burn wood. When up and running in 2016 they will generate 12.5 terawatt hours of electricity a year. This energy will get a subsidy, called a renewable obligation certificate, worth £45 ($68) a megawatt hour (MWh), paid on top of the market price for electricity. At current prices, calculates Roland Vetter, the chief analyst at CF Partners, Europe’s largest carbon-trading firm, Drax could be getting £550m a year in subsidies for biomass after 2016—more than its 2012 pretax profit of £190m.

With incentives like these, European firms are scouring the Earth for wood. Europe consumed 13m tonnes of wood pellets in 2012, according to International Wood Markets Group, a Canadian company. On current trends, European demand will rise to 25m-30m a year by 2020.
That's right. Create an economic Slash n' Burn incentive. It takes a special kind of central "planner" to create these kinds of incentives.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Denver Broncos