Jump to content


Photo

The Great Global Warming Swindle


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#41 Mastermind

Mastermind

    Server Technician

  • Undead
  • 7,014 posts
  • Location:Cambridge, MA
  • Projects:MasterNews 3
  •  The Man Behind the Curtain

Posted 13 October 2008 - 12:47 AM

So, now you've gone from it's impossible for humans to be having an impact, to not caring because it won't affect you?
Posted Image

Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.

Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |

#42 some_weirdGuy

some_weirdGuy

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 4,080 posts
  • Location:Queensland, Australia
  •  Weird Guy of the Forums

Posted 13 October 2008 - 06:35 AM

compare that to the 150 gigatons from animal waste, and god only knows how much from decaying plant and animal matter. (A little clue: it's well over 150 gigatons.)


source please :D

and our contribution to CO2 and other green house gasses is making a difference, and it only needs a (comparably) little amount to set of a chain reaction that can cause all sorts of problems

weather you believe it or not its real, and its a problem we can help to fix
(when i listen to you guys saying we aren't effecting the environment with our pollution I'm reminded of the nuts who say we have never landed on the moon and it was all filmed in area 51... but i'd better not spark off that argument :p )

"I reject your reality and substitute my own" -Adam Savage, Mythbusters
Posted Image|Posted Image
Posted Image|Posted Image
Posted Image


#43 Nertea

Nertea

    ...lo sa raptor!

  • Hosted
  • 3,349 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Projects:Star Villains and Space heroes, The Dwarf Holds
  •  T3A Chamber Member
  • Division:BFME/Unity

Posted 13 October 2008 - 06:41 AM

One of the interesting things about this debate is evidence levels and confidence. Usually, when a body of scientists publish some set of finding that look reasonable, there is immediate acceptance. Look at your local paper; chances are that this month there will be some 'brilliant' study that goes: "hey, check out our graph! you can see that where this line goes up (let's say this line is education), this other line (let's say income) also goes up! There must be some correlation". Most people will nod and go, "oh, that makes a bit of sense at least". Policymakers immediately go "ooh, more education = more income = increase in GDP = sweet lets use it in our election platform".

The point is that the public accepts a lot of silly things, or partially flawed things (like the education vs. income example) on basis of a fancy graph. There will be naysayers, of course, who will actually point out the flaws in the argument, and they have points. "What if you sampled only people from Toronto? won't that skew the results?" - this is a valid criticism.

However in this case we have reports that have been going on since 1985 at least (when the IPCC was formed) which have not just ONE graph but about FOUR HUNDRED which all do the same thing. To put it simply, there are two lines: one is global temperature, the other is global greenhouse gas emissions. They both go up.

By the standards we tend to apply to anything else, the info needed for public confidence is far exceeded. Why then, are so many people confident that CO2 emissions by humans are not relevant to climate change?

Here's Graph 1
And Graph 2

IPCC sources so you could say they're biased... but if that's the best anyone can do...

sig.png
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.


#44 Vortigern

Vortigern

    Sumquhat quisquis.

  • Division Leaders
  • 4,654 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England.
  • Projects:Workin'...
  •  ...like a workin' man do.
  • Division:Role-Playing Games
  • Job:Division Leader

Posted 13 October 2008 - 11:31 AM

So, now you've gone from it's impossible for humans to be having an impact, to not caring because it won't affect you?

I haven't gone anywhere. I believe the same as I always have, which is that we haven't had nearly as much of an impact, if any at all, as most people assume, and I don't particularly care either way. I just don't.

source please

Watch the video links at the start of this thread. Readnthis if you must, it's just a little bit about the impact of cattle on the environment from Wikipedia, but it's the best I could be bothered to find right now. It says cows account for 18% of greenhouse gases. That help?

However in this case we have reports that have been going on since 1985 at least (when the IPCC was formed) which have not just ONE graph but about FOUR HUNDRED which all do the same thing. To put it simply, there are two lines: one is global temperature, the other is global greenhouse gas emissions. They both go up.

Yes, they both go up. But to quote again one of my favourite people, Bobby Henderson, founder of Pastafarianism, global warming is caused by a lack of pirates. Global temperatures have risen, numbers of pirates has decreased. Therefore, if there were more pirates today, global warming would not be happening. Sweet logic, jackass. Correlation does not imply causation.

That said, strong correlation, such as that between solar activity and global temperature, does suggest a certain degree of correlation. I can't find a link to the graphs specifically, but watch the damn videos. The graphs are there, quite clearly, and if you don't just refuse to accept it on grounds of you're stuck in a rut, you'll see that CO2 emissions have little relation to global temperatures, and are probably more of a side-effect than a cause.

I found you this graph, which should help you with this. You'll notice that CO2 levels rise after temperature. How is that, therefore, a cause? Answer me that one, please.

Edited by Vortigern, 13 October 2008 - 11:31 AM.

I hope I am a good enough writer that some day dwarves kill me and drink my blood for wisdom.

#45 Nertea

Nertea

    ...lo sa raptor!

  • Hosted
  • 3,349 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Projects:Star Villains and Space heroes, The Dwarf Holds
  •  T3A Chamber Member
  • Division:BFME/Unity

Posted 13 October 2008 - 08:11 PM

Yes, they both go up. But to quote again one of my favourite people, Bobby Henderson, founder of Pastafarianism, global warming is caused by a lack of pirates. Global temperatures have risen, numbers of pirates has decreased. Therefore, if there were more pirates today, global warming would not be happening. Sweet logic, jackass. Correlation does not imply causation.

There's no need to get defensive, I was just mulling over the state of how people view scientific evidence in other domains vs. global warming. I'd also actually argue that global warming can't be cause by lack of pirates due to the lack of timescale correlation. Plus, some people would say that piracy is pretty rampant today as well...

The idea here is that I wouldn't just use one graph, or one correlation. There are studies using a dozen different temperature properties and a dozen different CO2 indices that all point towards a correlation between the two. This tends to be backed by relatively basic science regarding large molecules and incoming solar radiation. How this works I won't get into, but if you like I can explain :rolleyes:. It's reasonably simple.

So my reasoning for accepting global warming as cause by human intervention is as follows:
- There is a significant rise in CO2 and temperatures in the last 100-150 years: this you cannot debate. Any graph of atmospheric particulate matter and any temperature graph will tell you that.
- These two variables rise at roughly the same time: also not debatable unless you want to haggle at small differences.
- There is a physically sound basis to believe that IN GENERAL carbon dioxide acts as an absorber of longwave (and to a lesser extent shortwave) radiation and therefore that IN GENERAL carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas: also not debatable... this is just physics here, unless you want to debate how wrong our understanding of physics is.
- Therefore, carbon dioxide increases should lead to increased greenhouse effects.

Your counter argument to this is essentially "There might be other reasons!". I'm cool with that. It's actually likely a combination of factors. However human based climate change is the most logical of these. It's not just the CO2, but a number of subsidiary effects. Say CO2 warms the planet a little bit. Ice begins to melt. Decreased global albedo (reflectivity) leads to more absorbition of insolation. More insolation leads to more energy present in the global system -> warming. Human logging and development of natural carbon sinks (peat bogs, permafrost areas, forests) results in less CO2 absorbtion and recycling by the environment... natural CO2 emissions increase as decomposers in those areas are no longer countered by CO2 filtration by forests, additional carbon in contained in the atmosphere, greenhouse effect is slightly accentuated... Meanwhile cities are putting out immense amounts of longwave anthropogenic radiation, which cannot be released into space because of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere, the heat stays here...

I mean, there are all these ways humans affect the environment that lead to possible warming. I can go into more detail on any of those that I've mentioned if you like.

I also found you a solar activity proxy graph here. By this, we should be cooling off, no? I mean, sunspot activity is often correlated with solar output, and since that reached a maximum in the 50s according to this, we ought to be seeing a lower amount reaching the planet. Must be something else going on! Of course, the correlation between sunspots and output is not well understood so I would throw any solar-related data, supporting or disproving human warming effects out the window.

I found you this graph, which should help you with this. You'll notice that CO2 levels rise after temperature. How is that, therefore, a cause? Answer me that one, please.


I'm actually confused by this - temperature rises after CO2 levels in the near entirety of the Vostok dataset. Considering that Vostok is the most heavily researched ice core out there, wouldn't you use that instead of the Epica readings, which are older and therefore certainly have more uncertainty...

sig.png
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.


#46 Vortigern

Vortigern

    Sumquhat quisquis.

  • Division Leaders
  • 4,654 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England.
  • Projects:Workin'...
  •  ...like a workin' man do.
  • Division:Role-Playing Games
  • Job:Division Leader

Posted 14 October 2008 - 10:02 AM

You know, it's a hell of a lot more difficult to find data to back up my theory here, simply because so few people believe it. :rolleyes:

Anyway, my argument of "There might be other reasons!" is less that than "There are other far more significant reasons!". I'm not saying our CO2 output has no effect whatsoever, I'm simply saying that in comparison to other factors, other producers of the CO2 and other things that may have an effect on global temperature, humanity's CO2 output is relatively insignificant. Besides, as I understand it, the percentage of water vapour is around 1%, variable, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.038%, probably now slightly higher, but still. (Source) Water vapour, I believe, catches and contains more of whatever it is that heats up the world than CO2 does, so the small amount of CO2 shouldn't be very important in comparison.

Maybe the view of someone looking at this in a less flagrantly scientific manner is what's needed here. There is such a thing as over-analysis.
I hope I am a good enough writer that some day dwarves kill me and drink my blood for wisdom.

#47 Nertea

Nertea

    ...lo sa raptor!

  • Hosted
  • 3,349 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Projects:Star Villains and Space heroes, The Dwarf Holds
  •  T3A Chamber Member
  • Division:BFME/Unity

Posted 14 October 2008 - 10:34 AM

Maybe the view of someone looking at this in a less flagrantly scientific manner is what's needed here. There is such a thing as over-analysis.


It's for this reason in particular that I've been resisting digging out my atmospheric science texts :rolleyes:.

sig.png
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.


#48 some_weirdGuy

some_weirdGuy

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 4,080 posts
  • Location:Queensland, Australia
  •  Weird Guy of the Forums

Posted 15 October 2008 - 06:40 AM

lol :shiftee:

Well im saying it is being effected by us, god agrees, that settles it.

:shiftee:


And with added temperature CO2 is emited from the oceans, you know why? cause 1/3 of our CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans. This also makes oceans more acidic.

So 1/3 of our greenhouse gasses are absorbed, then the remaining 2/3 go into the atmosphere and adds to the greenhouse effect, this makes the temperature go up releasing some of the 1/3 that was being absorbed, making it hotter making more get released etc, etc, etc. So its like dominoes, tip the balance and it all falls over...

Unless we stop dumping greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own" -Adam Savage, Mythbusters
Posted Image|Posted Image
Posted Image|Posted Image
Posted Image


#49 Vortigern

Vortigern

    Sumquhat quisquis.

  • Division Leaders
  • 4,654 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England.
  • Projects:Workin'...
  •  ...like a workin' man do.
  • Division:Role-Playing Games
  • Job:Division Leader

Posted 15 October 2008 - 12:59 PM

Once again, the major point I've been trying to make has been missed. I'm not saying CO2 has no effect on the environment. Nor am I saying that humanity has had no part to play. Nor again am I saying that all the various scientists who have looked into this are wrong. I am simply saying that humanity's contribution to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small compared to that of natural processes, and blaming global warming entirely on the actions of humanity is arrogant, incorrect and foolish. It doesn't matter how much of our CO2 output is absorbed by the oceans, because humanity's greenhouse gas output is tiny compared to cows, decaying leaves, volcanic activity and innumerable other little things.

Yes, we probably should stop dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but if we do, don't be surprised if the climate continues to change.
I hope I am a good enough writer that some day dwarves kill me and drink my blood for wisdom.

#50 Nertea

Nertea

    ...lo sa raptor!

  • Hosted
  • 3,349 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Projects:Star Villains and Space heroes, The Dwarf Holds
  •  T3A Chamber Member
  • Division:BFME/Unity

Posted 15 October 2008 - 03:38 PM

It'll continue to change regardless, you're right. Residence times and feedback loops ensure that for the moment, even if we stopped emissions alltogether, warming wouldn't stop for another 50 years or so. We're totally fucked either way.

sig.png
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.


#51 Pasidon

Pasidon

    Splitting Hares

  • Network Admins
  • 9,126 posts
  • Location:Indiana
  • Projects:Writing Words With Letters
  •  I Help
  • Division:Community
  • Job:Community Admin

Posted 15 October 2008 - 03:52 PM

May be sooner than 50 years until that ozone corrosion goes critical. Makes you wonder if dem' Aztecs were right about the world ending 12/12/12. Either gonna' be by global sun bathing (warming) or the sun's funeral... or war... whatever.

(Wonder why I haven't posted outside of the RJ Mod until now...)

#52 Puppeteer

Puppeteer

    title available

  • Global Moderators
  • 2,947 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  •  Faute de Mieux
  • Division:Community
  • Job:Magazine Staff/Global Moderator

Posted 15 October 2008 - 04:05 PM

Ozone Layer won't go critical in 50 years. I thought that the depletion of the Ozone Layer was due only to the detrimental effects of Chlorfluorocarbons (CFCs) (sp? :shiftee:) and HFCs. These were largely in the more primitive air conditioners, freezers and metallic paints. These have largely been fazed out in MEDCs and so true in most MIDCS? I think it's MIDCs, between LEDCs and MEDCs. Anyway, the point is now HFCs mainly exist now in fire extinguishers and that's it. The Ozone Layer won't screw itself over in the next 50 years.

#53 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 15 October 2008 - 07:58 PM

Correlation is not causation, that is true, Vort. But you can use that logic to apply to drink-drivers. There is no actual empirical evidence that states that the effects of being drunk actually cause accidents. Only that they slow your reaction time and alter your judgement.

That's good enough logic for it to be accepted as fact that drunk-driving is bad. And I would tend to agree- correlation is sometimes sufficient enough. And even if it isn't humanity's fault, surely it's better to err on the side of caution rather than being so callous?

#54 Vortigern

Vortigern

    Sumquhat quisquis.

  • Division Leaders
  • 4,654 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England.
  • Projects:Workin'...
  •  ...like a workin' man do.
  • Division:Role-Playing Games
  • Job:Division Leader

Posted 15 October 2008 - 09:26 PM

Look elsewhere and you'll find that I have applied the same logic to drink-driving, and come up with the conclusion that drink-driving should not be a crime. Dangerous driving, while under the influence or not, should be, but simply having drunk alcohol and then driven should not necessarily be a crime. I know lots of people who, over the limit, have still been safer drivers than other sober road users. I've seen old people go swerving across lanes in mid-morning before, and I'm guessing they weren't drunk. Anyway, not the point.

I agree with you on this too, erring on the side of caution is wise. I haven't said that we should continue to pollute and chuck out whatever shit our machines come up with. I'm fine with the idea of reducing our CO2 output and that of any other greenhouse gas. All this is, is me not agreeing with the idea of global warming being caused by mankind. Use the concept for whatever ends you want, just don't expect me to believe that it's true in the face of the evidence I have seen and found most compelling.
I hope I am a good enough writer that some day dwarves kill me and drink my blood for wisdom.

#55 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 15 October 2008 - 10:14 PM

On a funny sidenote about cars and accidents, local news reported on research that proves that criminals are much more prone to starting traffic accidents than law-abiding citizens. Most likely because they have a psychology of breaking rules in favor of getting what they want.

To say that it should be legal to DUI because some are better drivers while drunk than others that are sober is pretty silly. it is pretty much obvious that slower reaction-times should overall make you a more dangerous driver. if you are dangerous from before thats something that should be weeded out by the guys that gives you the certificate; or some future technology that pops up a message saying "Your driving sucks, please pull over and rip your drivers license in twain". and i don't think that will go down well with the conspiracy theorists.


Anyway enough digressions. I'm pretty apathic on global warming, but I like the "better safe than sorry" way of doing business when it comes to the world we live in. As long as I have a pc with internet and food, I can live with many sacrifices. To actively go against those that try to make us more cautious about what we gas into the atmosphere, is nothing but a subconscious fear that you have to sacrifice something that you have access to today.

Life is an addiction I hear, hard to give up on the tiniest part of it even if its supposedly for the betterment of all.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#56 Vortigern

Vortigern

    Sumquhat quisquis.

  • Division Leaders
  • 4,654 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England.
  • Projects:Workin'...
  •  ...like a workin' man do.
  • Division:Role-Playing Games
  • Job:Division Leader

Posted 16 October 2008 - 10:08 AM

To say that it should be legal to DUI because some are better drivers while drunk than others that are sober is pretty silly.

Yes, it is pretty silly. But so is attributing the changing climate of an entire planet solely to the actions of its human population.

And just so you know, I'm not afraid of sacrificing what I have today. I would quite happily get by without many of life's little luxuries, and I'm fully in favour of developing clean and renewable fuel sources and whatnot. This is simply a discussion about whether or not mankind is responsible for global warming, which it isn't. That's not to say humanity hasn't contributed, just that the contribution is proportionately very small.

EDIT: I just found out something else: the average human exhales 2.2 pounds of CO2 every day. By my calculations, this gives us 5219500000000 pounds of CO2 every year from people simply breathing. That translates to 2372500000000 kilograms, which is then 2372500000 tons, 2372500 kilotons, 2372.5 megatons or 2.3725 gigatons. So, one third of humanity's CO2 output is equalled simply by breathing. Are we going to have to stop that too?

Edited by Vortigern, 16 October 2008 - 11:31 AM.

I hope I am a good enough writer that some day dwarves kill me and drink my blood for wisdom.

#57 Puppeteer

Puppeteer

    title available

  • Global Moderators
  • 2,947 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  •  Faute de Mieux
  • Division:Community
  • Job:Magazine Staff/Global Moderator

Posted 16 October 2008 - 03:35 PM

That's just being silly...
Let's continue to use Global Warming caused by man/nature to enlighten/fool trusting/ignorant humans into knowing/thinking that they're the cause, thus reducing pollution/pollution!

:blink:

Edited by Puppeteer, 16 October 2008 - 03:35 PM.


#58 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 16 October 2008 - 04:13 PM

I don't really care much about the discussion that humans are to blame for the global heating.
There were some Danish scientists(i think) that proved that sunstorm radiation combined with certain particles in the atmosphere and whatnot actually cause the air to gather more humidity, making clouds and causing the earth to be cooler. Or maybe it went the other way i don't recall specifically. But what they found was that when the sun had been more active in the past, there had been more clouds on earth because of these particles getting hit by radiation from the sun.

Proof was found in archeological digs where they found a way to measure the average temperature the past million years and then combined that with the graphs of the suns activity the past million years(how they figured out the sun activity beats me but i guess that was archeological aswell). they got laughed at by your average human-is-to-blame-for-global-warming activists, but their evidence was pretty unbiased and made sense.

Even if the globe is not being affected as much as they claim it is, its still safer to start prepping for the great suck that will come once we've spent all our non-renewable resources on ice for our coka-colas and other comfortables. i would hate to see humanity being viped out of this universe because we were too lazy to get off our asses and used up all our energy on pillow-puffing ourselves.

Edited by duke_Qa, 16 October 2008 - 04:22 PM.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users