Good ole Solar Panels...ever read about how much water they have to permanently poison to make them? That is why CA WAS in a drought[of course I'm kidding, as the rain from the last 2 months have solved the drought that was the Giant story until it wasn't happening any longer and nobody cares]. Windmills kill massive amounts of birds and Solar kills massive amounts of water. What are we to do?
I notice on that last anomally chart the start date is late 70's. Because now we use a digital therm and we have no idea what the dig temp was in the 60's or before. If they don't know the exact temp from more than 40 years ago, how do they know it has changed in the past 100?
|
Groundking said:
Here's my source: http://www.thegwpf.com/indur-m-goklany-global-death-toll-from-extreme-weather-events-declining/ Does a warmer climate REALLY lead to a drier climate? Come on, even a primary school kid could tell you that a warmer planet will lead to more evaporation, leading to a WETTER climate. I mean FFS nobody thinks that a warmer planet will be drier. And you know, that even contradicts what you think about the climate change, if the climate is drier, there's less capacity for extreme weather events (outside of if you consider droughts extreme weather events, but with modern technology they really aren't an issue, almost nobody in the developed world dies of drought any more, and people in the developing world, surprisingly, find drought easier to cope with as compared to extreme cold events). And how on earth do you even try and combat the idea of if the temperature is warmer, deserts will spread, as deserts are formed due to warm air which has already lost its moisture at the equator is falling on a land, hense why deserts (by the traditional thinking, as in the Sahara and Khalahari, you do get some deserts simply due to geograpy, such as the Gobi desert, which is due to the Himalayas) allways occur around the tropics. Now once you know this information then surely for the deserts to spread, the wet zones north and south need to decrease? But if we have a warmer, wetter climate isn't it a possibility that these wet zones will widen, reducing the deserts?
Yes, an overall warmer globe will lead to more evaporation, so a wetter climate globally, however desert zones are desert zones because rain generally doesn't fall (very often) there. More rainfall in the tropical rainforests (or wherever else really) won't help desert areas, and especially not when what rainwater does fall there evaporates quicker, leading to harsher environments for vegetations, which leads to less vegetation, which makes it even harder for the affected area to "hold on" to what little water it has. This all becomes a snowballing effect, which contributes to deserts spreading. Perhaps I should've specified that when I said drier, I meant in desert areas (and those in close proximity, which are those in danger of becoming deserts). No climate change isn't a question, never said it was (and IF I did, I appologise as the post was written in spurts between bits of work, and it would have been a faux par for me to write that), the climate always changes, it did so before us, and will do so forever after us, I don't think we even have a debate that we don't contribute to the climate, as we clearly do locally with all our big cities becoming heat islands, the debate is whether or no we are the driving force behind the current warming, and I simply don't beleive we are, then the question is do we contribute, maybe? but the system is so complex we don't know, at all, and if we DO, how much? We do know 100% that earth's temperature is sustained by greenhouse gases "trapping" some of the thermal radiation. We do know that one of these greenhouse gases is CO2. We may not know exactly how much man-made CO2 emissions contribute to climate change, but to say that we do contribute, on a global level, to climate change is a very very very reasonable assumption. However I don't think we should play lotto on this. if there's a chance we are contributing a lot, then we should take action to prevent it from getting out of hand. Reducing CO2 emmissions globally will only happen if the developing world agrees to follow suit with the west, if the developing world does this people WILL die as would otherwise, this is inevatable, as without plentiful access to the cheapest forms of energy, which are currently the fossil fuels, which emmit CO2 when burnt, their economies can't develop as much as otherwise, so these countries are more at risk to all extreme events, as they don't have as much economic might to cope with these things. There's a reason that climate related deaths have dramatically fallen since we've started emmitting CO2, as this cheap form of dense energy gives us far more capacity to do work that other wise, and this capacity helps protect people from the effects of disasters Developed countries must take the majority of the burden in the start, while the developing world gets a more "lax" attitude, simply because the developed world is responsible for a lot more of the cumulative CO2 emission than the developing. There is/will be left plenty of room for developing countries to continue expanding their economy, it's not like we're going to cut of all access to fossil fuels. It's just that fossil fuel consumption in the developed world will start to gradually decrease, while fossil fuel consumption in developing countries will increase for a while, before they flatten out and then decrease. |
Reply in bold
Teeqoz said:
Reply in bold |
Ugh, I hate the qoute tree system this forum uses.
Yes, what I'm trying to say is that the 'band' of tropical rainfall that occurs could extend north and south, encroaching onto the deserts. And yes this is true, but something that must be taken into consideration, is that the tropics are warming much much slower than the north pole, which is one of the biggest contributor to the warming data. Unfortunately there are only 6 stations on Antartica, so the date isn't really strong enough to make a conclusion either way for warming or cooling, and there is evidence either way.
Also: http://www.itwire.com/science-news/climate/60575-rising-co2-level-making-earths-deserts-bloom-csiro-study (I can no longer find the primary source, losing access to my uni's library now that I've graduated is annoying) So again, I'm not really convinced that it's no deforestation and slash and burn that's fueling the current desertification, particularily for the Sahara. Also if you feel inclined there are people working on greening the arabian peninsula, with some promising signs for both soft and hard engineered methods, with some hillsides having massive improvements in terms of vegitation cover (which also couple help water retention in the area for the local water cycle). I'll dig up some stuff if you like?
No I know, I was mostly trying to play devils advocate, but it's not all cut and dry with greenhouse gasses, with the most prominant, water vapour, acting as both a greenhouse gass, and the opposite (I can't think of the damn word haha), as clouds reflect heat coming in. And yeah it's a reasonable assumption, but the gass being only 0.04% (I made a mistake earlier, was thinking in PPB, but it's PPM :/) of the atmosphere, and going from that to say 0.05% is really going to do that much? And what do you mean about getting out of hand? Out of hand for what? What's the optimum temperature of the globe for human inhabitance? The dark ages occured inbetween this warmer period and the medieval warm period, so perhaps a warmer climate is better for human inhabitance, also this past century has been the warmest for a few, yet human life has never been richer, healthier or longer? And again, I'll repeat my point, what if doing something is more harmful/damaging to human life than doing nothing?
But then how on earth are we going to do anything about CO2 emissions, with China and India being 1st and 3rd in yearly emissions, and 2nd and 6th in cumulative emissions, or are you including them in the developed world? If so, well that's not very fair, as these countries have GDP's (PPP, Per Capita) less than a third and almost a tenth of the USA's respectively. And say you do include these countries, it's not like there aren't other developing countries with monstrous populations that are starting to catch up in the CO2 game, case in point, Indonesia, who are 14th in yearly CO2 emissions, but has a GDP (PPP, Per Capita) a 5th of the USA's. If you start restricting these coutries route to economic prosperity then then an awful lot of people are going to suffer.
| Illusion said: I am skeptical about Climate Change mainly because of the thought-control left-wing elites who are promoting it. When I see climate scientists or scientists who work for NASA being dismissed from their jobs for questioning the science behind climate change I really start to smell a rat. Climate change is used so often to promote global socialism and the reduction of population and this just too easily fits the agenda of the elite left. I don't pretend to understand the science behind climate change, but I am highly skeptical when I see how it's being forced on people. |
How is it being forced on people exactly? Please tell me who has come to your door and interfered with your life in any way.
I will repeat this for the thousandth time: WHY.IS.THIS.CONSIDERED.A.POLITICAL.ISSUE?
When you take scientists who use constantly-updated information and Bible-fan congressmen/women(gender equality for you goons), things won't be pretty. There'll be those people that'll misquote scientific evidence, those who quote the bible(in a scientific discussion. lmao), and just much more bogus.
If you were to place this question in front of scientists though, there will be some sort of clear answer supported by ACTUAL evidence. That's the great thing with scientists. If there's information, then the conversation will usually end with one side that's leaned on more.
Do this with politicians, and they'll be adding in their own BS to the conversation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.
| Groundking said: 1) whislt yes we know that CO2 increases the temperature in a closed system, the Earth is NOT a closed system, so taking this and thinking that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in the temperature is a false assumption, as it's not know how it works in an open system.
|
Physics remains the same in closed and open systems, but the models we use become increasingly complex in an open system. It's possible to detect a decrease in temperature while carbon dioxide concentration increases, but then there must be another force more dominant than carbon dioxide. Imagine I'm pushing a box in one direction. In order to push the box in the other direction some one else must overcome the weight of the box and the force of my push. If some one else only observed my force, they might believe that motion occurs in the direction opposite of the direction of the force. But they'd be incorrect because they missed the opposing force.
| Groundking said:
6) And this is the right way to think, thank you very much for this, of course CO2 doesn't have a drastic effect on the temperature, I mean ffs how on earth is a gass that makes up only 0.00004% of the atmosphere supposed to have any real effect on the temperature when compared to the fact that we have a big massive open fussion reactor in the sky that fluctuates in output constantly. I mean FFS come on people.
|
I'm nitpicking, but your listed carbon dioxide concentration is off by magnitudes...
Many factors contribute to the global temperature, but it would be unfortunate to ignore one due to its size. It would take an aluminum sphere with a large volume to match the mass of a small lead ball. Much like different elements have different densities, different gases will absorb and emit radiation more or less effectively. I would be surprised if the fluctuations of the sun's emission (measureables) are not considered in models unless they are shown to have no effect.
Slightly off-topic, but I've always enjoyed how simultaneously depressing and optimistic both potential outcomes of the climate change debate are.
We are causing climate change:
+ We might be able to stop it!
- We suck.
We aren't causing climate change:
+ We don't suck!
- We likely can't do much to stop it.
RadiantDanceMachine said:
Please explain why you think an appeal to authority is problematic when they are an actual authority?
You're thinking of an appeal to authority fallacy wherein one cites for instance an eminent physicist for a topic in which they are not credentialed as gospel. 97% consensus is fairly close to reality. If you include all of the published scientists from that study (they filtered for top 10% I believe) the figure only moves to 91%. It's been a while since I've had to bother dealing with deniers, so feel free to check my maths or really my memory. The hysteria was not promulgated by scientists, it was put forth by media outlets. Let's at least criticize the appropriate culprits here. While I do not hold to alarmism, it's actually quite obvious that we're contributing to climate change for reasons you even mention in your post. However, you seem to be committing an ignoratio elenchi fallacy by failing to acknowledge what I will call the "tipping point". Suppose that you drop a bath tub in the middle of the rain forest. It rains, water goes in, it evaporates in the heat, repeat. Now, some person comes by and drops a glass of water into that tub every day. Now we've upset the natural cycle. If it continues in this manner, eventually the tub will be overflowing. That is really the fear. It becomes an unmanageable situation, a runaway effect. Your comments about an apocalypse are again unscientific, this is nothing but media presence. |
Appealing to an authority is fine. As long as that authority isn't a politician. They are authorities on their own agendas. Likewise, the media seem to sway quite strongly either one way or another, all the while looking for the most dramatic scenarios they can find to get viewership. They are certainly not authorities.
I appeal to authority that shows data, like climate scientists and their actual peer reviewed work. The IPCC certainly have their faults, but there is truly a huge amount of data in their reports and they are improving with each one. So I don't have too much of a problem with the IPCC as an authority, but they are not nearly as alarmist as some would have me believe.
For example they're natural disaster experts find no links between AGW and extreme weather events.
As others have pointed out, the scientific consenus is almost fraudulent. It includes works by Richard Lindzen and I believe Roy Spencer, who are known sceptics. Regardless, a consensus is a very unscientific way of 'proving' something. It only takes 1 paper to prove 100 wrong.
Speaking of which, I am yet to find anything definitive on this 'tipping point'. It seems like more of an hypothesis. One which seems very difficult to test.
Do you have any papers on the tipping point that come up with anything substantial? I would actually be very interested to read it (I'm not being a smart arse, I really would like to read it to educate myself).
| Locknuts said: Not only that, but the computer models appeared to be predicting an increase in global temperatures fairly well for a while. But then something strange happened.... Observations started deviating from the predictions of the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so they quietly began lowering their short and medium term expected temperature rises. |
This is one of those situations where understanding of science is lacking.
They saw the actual data deviating from projections, and started investigating why it was deviating. In the meantime, they noted that there's no reason to assume the deviation will sustain itself, so short-term predictions were adjusted but they just increased the margin of error on longer predictions.
What caused the deviation? The model had failed to account properly for how the southern Pacific Ocean interacts in terms of heat. You've heard of El Nino and La Nina, right? Under El Nino, the Pacific releases heat from deep underwater into the atmosphere. Under La Nina, the Pacific absorbs more heat from the atmosphere. Until the early 2000s, the world was experiencing El Nino. Then it switched to La Nina, and the rate of warming of the atmosphere dropped - it kept warming, but at a much slower rate, because the Pacific was absorbing more heat.
It switched back to El Nino in the middle of last year. So it shouldn't surprise anybody that the warming jumped back into action at full force - hence why there's articles talking now about how 2015 was the hottest year on record, up 0.16 C on 2014.
When they added this effect, which is related to what they call the "Trade Winds", into the models, it became a lot more accurate. And the long-term predictions didn't change much.
There was actually a second thing that was influencing the result, though - it turned out that there was a statistical flaw in the aggregation of the data - when this flaw was corrected, the reduction in rate of warming wasn't as significant as it was before the correction. It was a mathematical flaw, not an interpretation flaw, that was fixed, so this isn't a "fudging the numbers" kind of thing.
Note that the whole thing about the 97% wasn't to say "you should trust it, because scientists say so", it was to say "stop listening to those people who are arguing that it's not happening because of 'no consensus' or 'the science is still out'". It was about countering an existing political message, not about creating a new assertion. It's the science that says it's happening, the 97% statistic shows that it's not a controversial scientific conclusion - scientists, especially those with expertise in the field, aren't doubting the findings in large numbers. There will always be those who challenge any scientific theory or result, but the vast majority view the science as solid.
In other words, it's not "scientists say it, so it's true", it's "the science is solid, so scientists are supporting it".
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
