Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[John Edward Mercier]

No source of CO2? I think your generalizing a bit.

And your not talking about the government power-grab... your talking about the science.
These are two whole-heartedly different subjects.

[Alex Libman]

First of all, you may need to re-read the post you just brainfarted on:

Would you stipulate a volcanic activity, if continuous, would change the climate?

Even a butterfly flapping its wings "changes the climate" - it's just a matter of where, when, how, how much, and whether it creates the political excuse for a global government power-grab.

No source of CO2 emissions on this planet is more temporary than the sub-atmospheric phase of human industrialization, and I know of nothing in this universe that carries a greater value.

Now, please clarify - exactly which part escapes your comprehension?

[John Edward Mercier]

Nothing escaped me. Where is your evidence that human industrial CO2 is less absorbed than other formats?
You wanted to speak to the science rather than the politics... so present the evidence.

[Alex Libman]

human industrial CO2 is less absorbed than other formats?

Who said that?  I didn't.  What I said was:  "No source of CO2 emissions on this planet is more temporary than the sub-atmospheric phase of human industrialization, and I know of nothing in this universe that carries a greater value."

All non-human sources of greenhouse gasses have been and will be around for millions or billions of years.  Large-scale anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gasses started in early 20th century and will be in decline by the end of the 21st, when most human pollution will be cost-effective to export into space.  In other words, this 0.28% slice of the greenhouse source pie chart is a tiny, tiny, tiny price this planet must pay for the human civilization, which will in turn spread this planet's natural circumstances to countless planets beyond...

[John Edward Mercier]

For it to be more temporary... would suggest that its absorbed faster than other formats.
And your doing exactly what the alarmist are... suggesting that you know the future... and thus the outcome.

[Alex Libman]

For it to be more temporary... would suggest that its absorbed faster than other formats.

Um, no, it would suggest a shorter duration of the phenomenon to its foreseeable conclusion - billions of years vs a couple of centuries.

And your doing exactly what the alarmist are... suggesting that you know the future... and thus the outcome.

I am not claiming to know the future with total certainty, but to counter their moonbattery with a logical outlook over the same time-frame during which they project limitless exponential pollution growth.  And even without the drastic difference in the plausibility of the two outlooks, the burden of proof would still be on the alarmists - a 10,000 mile journey of which they haven't yet taken a single step.

The reality of our solar system is understood well enough by modern science to be able to compare the costs and benefits of performing certain industries on our overpriced planet vs in the superabundant space, sunlight, and mineral wealth all around it, where pollution liabilities are pretty much zero.  There really are no two ways about it...  Keeping those industries on earth would eventually be like drinking your own urine and eventually dying of thirst while standing in a fountain of Poland Spring!

[John Edward Mercier]

The climate models only handle 80 years.
And humans will be producing carbon for their entire existence.

The basic science that the alarmists are using is the same science that will be needed to achieve what you would propose.
So the science either has value... or you'll never see the future you suggest.
 

[Alex Libman]

The climate models only handle 80 years.

I don't know where you got that arbitrary number...

First of all, in order to have an accurate model (the changes we're talking about are a fraction of a degree), you need to know every last possible detail you can about a system.  This is very difficult when much of your data for even two decades ago relies on disgruntled vodka-belching Soviet climatologists in Siberia who were owed 3 years back-pay!  Some sources of data, like tree rings and ice core samples, are estimates that simply don't give you this level of detail.  Then the data would need to be adjusted for things like "urban warming" around the temperature stations, solar activity, etc, etc, etc.  There are error margins and rooms for creative accounting at every turn.

The science of planetary-scale climatology is relatively new, and there are various natural cycles, some of which lasting hundreds of years, that humanity simply haven't had the chance to record yet.  In order words, an honest climatologist would be answering a lot of questions with "I don't know".

And humans will be producing carbon for their entire existence.

That in of itself isn't a bad thing, it's just a matter of where we put it and how much.  CO2 is plant food, and every 21st century high-efficiency agricultural plant should consider piping in some filtered CO2 from a nearby factory to optimize growth.  There are existing or potential industrial uses for all other byproducts of humanity, and failing that there is a darn big universe out there to safely throw them away.

The crazy allegation is that human beings will inevitably be producing enough carbon and other pollutants to cause a catastrophe on this planet, and that Mommy Global Government needs to take out its axe and intervene.  They have a desired politically-motivated solution in search of a problem, the very opposite of how a scientific inquiry should work.  Factually, they haven't proven a single thing!

All of their alarmist predictions have a 100% track record of failure.  My predictions continue to inch closer to reality as science continues to find new ways to increase efficiency and reduce pollution.  For example, when I first heard of solar panels, they achieved about 10-15% efficiency, while today they achieve 40-45%.  Laptop and other consumer electronics are financing the evolution of battery technologies to the point where electric cars are becoming feasible, with governmental tax incentives for those things being an example of "the crutches government gives you after it first breaks your legs".  Private sector spaceflight is paving the way for what will be the ultimate solution to pollution-free energy: space-based solar power.  All we need is to end government subsidy of pollution (including the meat industry and trillion-dollar wars for cheaper oil) and phase in libertarian pollution control methods that are based on Property Rights, and the problem of pollution growth will be solved once and for all.

The basic science that the alarmists are using is the same science that will be needed to achieve what you would propose. So the science either has value... or you'll never see the future you suggest.

All science has value.  But what the alarmists are doing is politics, not science.
 

[John Edward Mercier]

The arbitrary number is what the model designers chose... most likely do to computational limitations of the time.
And the models are applied science... which is not accurate.

Not a catastrophe... a change.

You seem to want to fall to the alarmists.

[Alex Libman]

That last statement makes me wonder if you have any crayons stuck far up your nose...

My views on Global Warming can be summed up with this quote:

"Remember that the burden of proof is on the alarmists to prove that (1) the past temperature measurements are accurate and statistically significant, (2) that the earth is indeed warming, (3) that the change is indeed anthropogenic and not explainable by dozens of natural cycles which science still has very little understanding of, (4) that the change is economically significant, (5) that the change is economically harmful, and (6) that their "world government" agenda is the ideal solution for this problem, considering all downsides and risks involved. The only thing they have proven so far is their capacity for deceit!"


Speaking of "capacity for deceit" - there has been a new twist in the popular pseudo-science of picking out trees and using their ring measurements to back whatever political agenda you happen to have.  The eco-nuts have been claiming for years that trees are nature's perfect thermometers, perfectly recording and retaining data within a fraction of a degree (which is the scale of the alleged temperature change), and thus must be unaffected by other factors like rainfall patterns, air and soil chemistry, insects, local human activity, etc.  Now, in addition to being perfect measures of temperature, tree ring sizes are also perfect measures of hydration - at the same time!  Rings get bigger - "zomg, Global Warming!"  Rings get smaller - "zomg, water crisis caused by Global Warming!"  Rings stay roughly even - "um, let's go find another tree"...

[John Edward Mercier]

No... No... No.
The 'burden of proof' is data to confirm that increased CO2 affects EM absorbtion... that CO2 is increasing... and that humans are contributors.
Each of these has been proven.

Basic science and applied are not the same...

[MaineShark]

The 'burden of proof' is data to confirm that increased CO2 affects EM absorbtion... that CO2 is increasing... and that humans are contributors.
Each of these has been proven.

That it effects absorption?  I think you mean reflection or emission, or such.

Anyway, the idea that humans are contributing to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in any significant way has not actually been proven.  We produce carbon dioxide, but we also produce agriculture, which absorbs carbon dioxide.  Our net impact may be quite a bit smaller than the graph Libman posted (which also includes other gasses; maybe we should discuss cutting those emissions, but that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).

And there's a fourth item that would need to be proven: that increases in carbon dioxide on the order measured actually impact global temperatures.  Global temperatures have not been shown to track with carbon dioxide levels at the sort of magnitude that is being discussed.  At these levels of change in carbon dioxide levels, global temperature has only been shown to respond to solar cycles.  It would take levels of output that we probably couldn't even managed if we tried, to produce the level of carbon dioxide release that has been proven to impact global temperature.

Joe

[John Edward Mercier]

No. I meant absorbtion. Emission occurs afterward; usually at a different wavelength.

The point is not to prove its significant. The original hypothesis was not developed for the express purpose of imposing upon human development; it was developed to determine a mechanism of climate variation. The environment really doesn't care where the CO2 comes from. It only notes more or less... it doesn't even note whether one is growing lawn, corn, or unmanaged forest.

As for the fourth item...
It only really matters if one can determine that the impact has signifigance (applied science).

The applied science has been shown to lack the ability to compensate for all other factors... and runs into ruination when determining whether the projects are significant within the time scale.

For instance... the date of last frost.
If the applied science could prove with some certainty that the DOF was going to be a week early next year (or even the next decade) that would have signifigance to you and I. If the applied science determined that it was going to be a week earlier a century from now. It would be interesting... but hardly significant.


 

[MaineShark]

No. I meant absorbtion. Emission occurs afterward; usually at a different wavelength.

Not really, no.  But I don't feel like getting into a discussion of blackbody radiation this morning, so let's drop it, as it's irrelevant to the topic...

The point is not to prove its significant.

We're speaking scientifically.  If it is insignificant, then it has no measurable effect.  Pouring a glass of water into the ocean has no significant effect on ocean levels.  It's a scientific term, and it is the most critical item in the discussion.

The original hypothesis was not developed for the express purpose of imposing upon human development; it was developed to determine a mechanism of climate variation.

I disagree.  The biggest issue with this topic is precisely that they did not start from observing a phenomenon, and then look for causes, but started by deciding that humans were causing damage, then looked for anything they could blame on humans.  The former is science.  The latter is not.

The environment really doesn't care where the CO2 comes from. It only notes more or less... it doesn't even note whether one is growing lawn, corn, or unmanaged forest.

Given that different plants process carbon dioxide at different rates per acre, it very much does "note" such.

As for the fourth item...
It only really matters if one can determine that the impact has signifigance (applied science).

Significance is hard science.  And yes, it would have to be determined that the impact was significant.  If it is not, then the whole hypothesis fails.

For instance... the date of last frost.
If the applied science could prove with some certainty that the DOF was going to be a week early next year (or even the next decade) that would have signifigance to you and I. If the applied science determined that it was going to be a week earlier a century from now. It would be interesting... but hardly significant.

That might matter, regarding the practical significance to human lives, but the way you're using the word has nothing to do with science.  An effect is significant if it has a measurable effect.  If there was actually a way to determine such a change, then it would be significant, because it would be at a measurable level.

If someone announced that the frost date would be five seconds earlier next century, it would not be significant, because "frost" is not something that happens on a seconds-level timescale.  There would be no way to measure such a thing, so the claim is not falsifiable.  Claims that are not falsifiable are not science.  Which, incidentally, is why AGW is not science: nothing the proponents claim is falsifiable.  That makes it religion, not science.

Joe

[John Edward Mercier]

Joe...
Absorbtion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(electromagnetic_radiation)

We can measure ('note) the level of atmospheric CO2. We can only estimate its level of production and absorbtion by various sources. This is why models use a 'cheat'. Regardless of what our esitmates are... they must coincide with the measurement.

The point of the hypothesis was not about the significance of the human factor when the theory was originally established.
And yes, they started from observing phenomena and hypothesizing from there. Which is why the early studies focused on solar output and orbital variations.

Its filling in some of those math 'cheats' and orbital/lunar/Mars colonization visions that is leading the way at this point.