joining together to fight global warming

[bardy]

im not really here to argue because its not like anyone's mind ever gets changed because of things we say here. I just wanted to point out that there were other people on that side of the argument. the poster was getting ganged up on.

[Debaser]

I just wanted to point out that the evidence and support on that other side of the argument is bollocks.

26 common climate change (denier) misconceptions.

It's disturbing how posting this doesn't phase you guys at all. Oh its just some wacky scientists spouting on about stuff. boring. Plus Al Gore is so damn annoying! So natch, whatever he's pushing must be bullshit, amirite?

[bardy]

yeah because you are the resident climate expert on netphoria, who gives a shit what anyone here thinks. we only have one geologist in the house and hes not here to give any input.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by bardy

yeah because you are the resident climate expert on netphoria, who gives a shit what anyone here thinks. we only have one geologist in the house and hes not here to give any input.

heh. I'm no climate expert (which is not the first time I've admitted that in this very thread). I just read a lot. What do the resident climate change deniers do?

[Debaser]

What is the motive? Why do you say 'let's do all the things to fight global warming' out of one side of your mouth and then say 'well global warming is bullshit' out of the other side? It's a glaring incongruity that I can only assume is related to politics (which is the actual bullshit in this world).

[bardy]

cause I dont like pollution and I would like to find an alternative to fossil fuels

although I hope that the civilzation of the future still needs rock to build with otherwise im out of a job

and were you asking what I do for a living?

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Debaser

heh. I'm no climate expert (which is not the first time I've admitted that in this very thread). I just read a lot.

yes, you read leftist websites that promote agendas... everyone's seen your story links

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

yes, you read leftist websites that promote agendas... everyone's seen your story links

It's pretty sad when people start degrading science websites as "leftist". Please tell me the lefty agenda of the websites I've posted on here. go!

I noticed you stopped posting links to the stuff you read because people pointed out how hilariously rightwing nutty they were. You just declare my links as lefty but don't actually say why.

[Debaser]

Do you have any actual points about climate change or are you just going to call me a liberal and pretend you just made an argument?

[I'm Hardcore]

ignore him Debaser

[I'm Hardcore]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Do you have any actual points about climate change or are you just going to call me a liberal and pretend you just made an argument?

Sean Hannity in the house

[wHATcOLOR]

Originally Posted by Hillzy

Some guy who took some undergraduate papers one time doesn't believe in global warming? We must have been wrong all along, someone alert the UN!

Hillzy's always been the kinda guy you wish would post more often

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by bardy

and were you asking what I do for a living?

No, I was trying to make the point that I freely declare where I get my sources from. What sites I read. Whose opinions I trust.

But for some reason most deniers don't do the same. I said, "I read a lot. What do climate change deniers do?" As in: Do you read? Where do you get your information? What do you read? Give me a link to explore.

If I'm not mistaken, there has been only one source link from a denier in this thread (about the milankovitch cycle), which I was fair enough to read the entirety of it only to discover that it doesn't even try to connect it to this current global warming. I offered more information on it and more links. DeviousJ addressed it, too. That was met with nothing or 'eh, its complicated! so....yeah...you leftys are...'.


*EDIT* I almost forgot that TOC posted a link, too, from a site by a crazy loon and referenced some quotes by another crazy loon to which I posted another link that eviscerated the latter loon. Nobody has attempted a response.

[Hillzy]

Originally Posted by bardy

who said he didnt believe in global warming? that's retarded. Beliving in global warming and BELIEVING THAT WE ARE CAUSING A LOT OF IT are different things.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by bardy

And go fuck yourself he knows more about the earth's history than you ever will.

Hehe, this statement almost makes me want to post some more about my job etc but no.

[Hillzy]

Originally Posted by wHATcOLOR

Hillzy's always been the kinda guy you wish would post more often

Aw gee thanks.

[AndySlash]

it would be really cool if we still had the flaming thread icon

think about it

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by

listen debaser, i really hate getting heated and flaming people in arguments on the internet.. i obviously dont know your background and you dont know mine. its frustrating.. isnt it? something is so clear in your head but people refuse to listen to everything you say. sorry if i came across as a jerk in earlier posts.

if you want to believe in gobal warming, then fine.. i just hope you are doing something about it by keeping an open mind and contributing to the furthering of knowledge with research, funding or volunteering or whatever you can do on the issue (if it is something you truly are concerned about), and are not just serving to repeat everything that has already been said. everyone knows there is scientific arguments on both sides of the issue, and its the bickering over who is right that is keeping us stagnant and not moving forward.

i am doing my part for the environment, and the stability of the future for my grandkids both in my country and around the world, and i chose to do it from a platform that does not believe in human-induced large scale climate change.

Like Debaser said, he's asking you to explain why you believe global warming isn't anthropogenic and you're just basically saying 'hey man, I do my bit for the environment' as though that's an answer. Limiting the effects of climate change is going to take a lot of effort, and the costs will negatively impact pretty much everyone, so having people on board with the justification for it is important - and it will shape political policy too, which is an issue with the US pres elections coming up.

So it's not just a case of 'you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want, we all want to help the environment anyway', it's about whether or not something needs to be done and about people having the resolve to see it through. What you're saying is akin to a bunch of accountants saying that you're haemorrhaging money and you need to reorganize your finances urgently, and you saying 'hey I'm naturally thrifty!'

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by AndySlash

it would be really cool if we still had the flaming thread icon

think about it

Al Gore slash fan fiction?

[bardy]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by bardy

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

What were you trying to accomplish by posting this? It's like you've taken an ambiguous stance in this thread because on one hand you know global warming is a problem but on the other hand you work for an industry that gets tax breaks to pollute the earth. If anything that article just supporting what Debaser and company have already said.

[bardy]

I'm not endorsing these I'm just showing that they exist:

http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstori....2485b657.html

[bardy]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

What were you trying to accomplish by posting this? It's like you've taken an ambiguous stance in this thread because on one hand you know global warming is a problem but on the other hand you work for an industry that gets tax breaks to pollute the earth. If anything that article just supporting what Debaser and company have already said.

how does my company get tax breaks to pollute the earth?

[bardy]

I was just bored and googling random stuff, I am fairly indifferent about peolpe here agreeing with em

I would like to argue about why mayfuck thinks my company gets tax breaks for polluting the earth though

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by bardy

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Scientists have studied the earth's climate for hundreds of years, gather data daily from all over the planet by thousands of scientists and found strong evidence that it's not just the sun causing global warming. By comparison, we've barely studied Mars climate and have found that one region of Mars has melted in a 6 year period -- thats it. That definitely shows regional warming, but to claim global warming on Mars is just an assumption right now without more evidence. That's just my amateur summation on it. But just reading the second page of your own link knocks down the Mars theory a few pegs. And now here's some wacky scientists using sciencey talk to science down the mars stuff:

http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11642

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

For anymore alternative theories that want to lay it all on the sun, you should google and familiarize yourself with the Faint Sun Paradox (where data shows that while the sun and earth were younger, the sun was weaker but yet the earth was hotter).

Originally Posted by bardy

I'm not endorsing these I'm just showing that they exist:

http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstori....2485b657.html

Yes, misinformation exists. So what to do? Read both sides.

A quite convincing takedown of William Gray:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...4/gray-on-agw/

[<sp3]

Originally Posted by Debaser

heh. I'm no climate expert... ...I just read a lot. What do the resident climate change deniers do?

i also read a lot on the topic, i am not a climate expert, but i am intimately involved the sciences of fluid mechanics, heat transfer, and large scale power generation. i understand, on a technical level, the arguments of both sides.. and fully accept that the "non human induced" argument holds a lot more weight. i am also dedicating my career to doing everything i can to secure and stabilize the power generation market in the united states. i gather as much technical information about alternative power sources (and any related topics.. such as "global warming") as i can.

Originally Posted by Debaser

Do you have any actual points about climate change or are you just going to call me a liberal and pretend you just made an argument?

here's one.. the current CO2 levels in our atmosphere may not be caused, as much as we think, from mankind's actives (ie burning hydrocarbons). The earth's oceans contain certain concentrations of dissolved gasses within its water, one of those gasses is CO2. As water heats up, it looses its ability to hold gasses in solution, and the gasses are released.

I dont need to post an article about this, it is an absolute fact..

If the earth has been heating up for the past X number of years, (which is reasonable to say it has been, also reasonable to say it has been from natural causes).. then the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere would have been routed from the oceans, NOT from man. What i am saying is that the increase in CO2 followed the increase in temperature, not vise versa.

That last paragraph is debatable, because they could have happened at the same time, and the concentrations from man and the concentrations from the ocean are really, really hard to accurately calculate.. but it is clear to me that ocean effect is much stronger

I am not denying that carbon dioxide had an affinity for absorbing the infrared spectrum, this can be proven and is a fact on the lab bench.. but it is more complicated than that when looking at a large scale complicated system. More CO2 on the earth does not necessarily mean more heat. There will be a heat input, yes, but this will also cause a secondary effect of greater convective heat transfer to the upper atmosphere where it can be more easily radiated off into space.

I dont like posting articles, because you can find just about any article to say anything you want to.. its not hard.

[dean_r_koontz]

The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 383 parts per million (ppm) by volume.[23] The 23 there means that the data have been taken from here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

before humans, there has never been a ppm value of CO2 higher than 300 ppm in the atmosphere, not even during the peaks. to draw the conclusion that the oceans suddenly have started to release more CO2 into the atmosphere now for some reason than ever before, is crazy. even if the majority of those gases comes from the water because of a feedback effect from the CO2 we'va already put out, it doesn't really matter. we still have extraordinary high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that have never been reached before.

i post this again

"Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree."[42]

now, the CO2 levels are higher than ever in the history of the earth. we know there's a connection between CO2 and the greenhouse effect and several temperature records have been broken since reliable widespread instrumental measurments became available.

"Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable.[17][18]"

we could not live on earth if we didn't have the greenhouse effect. you've gone so far as to question if the greenhouse effect exists, that's crackpot reasoning and i doubt that you can find many articles posted on that.

[dean_r_koontz]

the talks in bali have apparently stranded because the us, japan, canada and australia are unwilling to set procentual goals for reducing emissions. it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

[mercurial]

despite it being a non-binding agreement

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by

here's one.. the current CO2 levels in our atmosphere may not be caused, as much as we think, from mankind's actives (ie burning hydrocarbons). The earth's oceans contain certain concentrations of dissolved gasses within its water, one of those gasses is CO2. As water heats up, it looses its ability to hold gasses in solution, and the gasses are released.

I dont need to post an article about this, it is an absolute fact..

If the earth has been heating up for the past X number of years, (which is reasonable to say it has been, also reasonable to say it has been from natural causes).. then the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere would have been routed from the oceans, NOT from man. What i am saying is that the increase in CO2 followed the increase in temperature, not vise versa.

That last paragraph is debatable, because they could have happened at the same time, and the concentrations from man and the concentrations from the ocean are really, really hard to accurately calculate.. but it is clear to me that ocean effect is much stronger

I am not denying that carbon dioxide had an affinity for absorbing the infrared spectrum, this can be proven and is a fact on the lab bench.. but it is more complicated than that when looking at a large scale complicated system. More CO2 on the earth does not necessarily mean more heat. There will be a heat input, yes, but this will also cause a secondary effect of greater convective heat transfer to the upper atmosphere where it can be more easily radiated off into space.

I dont like posting articles, because you can find just about any article to say anything you want to.. its not hard.

Temperature variations are natural, and the energy involved in the entire system is huge - nobody's saying that isn't the case, or that humans are responsible for all of it, the point is that the recent rapid increases on top are down to human activity and that's what's going to push things over the edge. We're putting way more CO2 into the atmosphere, it can be accounted for there by isotopic analysis, and it lags the temperature record because it's a feedback - higher temperatures mean more CO2 is released, meaning even higher temperatures which result in even more CO2 until an equilibrium is reached. The whole 'CO2 lags behind temperatures!' thing has been addressed long ago but people keep bringing it up like it's some new evidence that nobody has explained.

And how can you say more CO2 doesn't necessarily mean more heat, when in the next breath you say there will be a greater convective heat transfer? The fact there's more heat to transfer kinda implies there's more heat, no? CO2 blocks outgoing energy from escaping except at the colder extremes of the atmosphere, where the lack of heat means less is emitted - to balance that, the entire atmosphere has to warm up until those cold extremes get hot enough to pump out enough energy into space and balance what's coming in, that's the whole problem. The planet is measurably absorbing more radiation than it's able to emit, that's why temperatures are rising (and why they'll continue to rise)

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by

here's one.. the current CO2 levels in our atmosphere may not be caused, as much as we think, from mankind's actives (ie burning hydrocarbons). The earth's oceans contain certain concentrations of dissolved gasses within its water, one of those gasses is CO2. As water heats up, it looses its ability to hold gasses in solution, and the gasses are released.

I dont need to post an article about this, it is an absolute fact..

If the earth has been heating up for the past X number of years, (which is reasonable to say it has been, also reasonable to say it has been from natural causes).. then the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere would have been routed from the oceans, NOT from man. What i am saying is that the increase in CO2 followed the increase in temperature, not vise versa.

That last paragraph is debatable, because they could have happened at the same time, and the concentrations from man and the concentrations from the ocean are really, really hard to accurately calculate.. but it is clear to me that ocean effect is much stronger

good, now we're actually talking!

That's a good question, how do we know that the increase in CO2 levels is due to human activity and not from the oceans? As you already understand, the oceans contain CO2. Now if the ocean is emitting carbon, then you would expect to find a carbon decrease in the oceans. But this is not the case. Measurements find that carbon has increased in the oceans. Oceans are absorbing more CO2 than ever before. You can then check out this line of thinking from the other end by observing that carbon (carbon-14) has decreased from the land biosphere (and thus CO2 has been emitted from land).


In fact, the oceans act as a huge CO2 sink, absorbing an incredible amount of C02, and acting as a buffer for the extra CO2 caused from human activity. That explains the discrepancy between the dramatic rise in CO2 emissions compared with the overall CO2 levels. But when will this buffering capacity reach its limit? And as you pointed out, the warming of the oceans decreases this limit.

source link