• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constellation or Climate Research?

Constellation or Climate research?


  • Total voters
    27
I'm not sure why I try to post on these global warming threads. Nothing that comes back as a response seems to resemble in the slightest what I've actually posted.

A convenient excuse for someone who has no response to any of the questions I posed.

Carry on, then. Pretend that there is no climate change. Pretend that I've posted that climate change is an impending disaster, that we must take action now. Pretend that Limbaugh and Hannity are more credible than NASA and NOAA. pretend what you like. Please don't respond to my posts until you actually read them first.

What the hell are you talking about!? Sheesh!

I never said "climate change" wasn't real. I asked you to define "climate change" and explain why it should concern me. Of course, you can probably do neither, which is why you have chosen to make inane references to Limbaugh and Hannity, two people whose opinions me nothing to me.

My information is simple fact and logic; I would invite you to utilize these tools.
 
Back to the benefits of climate research. First, it could actually help to determine if we are affecting the rate at which global warming is occurring. Not really the most important aspect in my opinion, but certainly one of them. Second, it could help us to determine a good balance of activities to get the most out of what goes into and comes out of our atmosphere. We need O2, plants need CO2. I think most people would prefer that the plants are putting out at least enough O2 in the air we breathe so we won't suffocate. But if we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the plant life can handle, then we are going to deplete our own O2 supplies. Considering how much we are destroying the plant life of both the oceans and the land, it might be a good idea to slow down how much excess, unnecessary CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere. Also, climate research can help us better determine when some natural, cyclic occurrences most likely may occur and/or what causes them to occur so that we can look for signs that they are about to happen. This may help us to better plan for such occurrences. Doing climate research can also help us to predict what kind of conditions to expect during certain natural weather cycles. Especially when we haven't had experience with them in recent history or even in human history, but they have occurred before in Earth's history.

You cannot just discount the benefits of all climate research because you disapprove of AGW research, no more than someone could discount the benefits of all space research just because they don't approve of constellation research simply because it has no obviously, immediate benefit to us.
 
All this research is pretty pointless. We have no capacity to alter the climate in our favor.


Honestly, has anyone really thought about what kind of massive systems we're talking about, when we're talking about humans affecting climate change? (in either a positive or negative sense).

The atmosphere has a mass of about five quintillion (5 × 1018 or 5,000,000,000,000,000,000) kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface.

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Best I can figure, that's about five thousand TRILLION tons.

The total mass of humanity:
7 billion humans at 70kg each = 490 billion kg. That's 490 million tons, or 0.000000098 of the mass of the atmosphere.

If we assume that each human comes along with a ton of mass of industrial product (share of housing, transporation, manufacturing, etc...bearing in mind that much of the world doesn't own much, so one ton is probably about avg), that's another 7 billion tons... or 0.0000014, for a whopping total of all humanity and all humanity's works equalling 0.000001498 of the mass of the atmosphere.

Okay this is just an estimate, but I'll bet it is within an order of magnitude of being correct. WE ARE TINY compared to the Earth.

For all of humanity's combined works to equal 1% of the mass of the atmosphere, we'd have to expand our production capacity about 10,000 fold...yes that's ten thousand fold.

We aren't even dust in the wind. :mrgreen:

This is the main reason I am skeptical of AGW.
 
Back to the benefits of climate research. First, it could actually help to determine if we are affecting the rate at which global warming is occurring. Not really the most important aspect in my opinion, but certainly one of them. Second, it could help us to determine a good balance of activities to get the most out of what goes into and comes out of our atmosphere. We need O2, plants need CO2. I think most people would prefer that the plants are putting out at least enough O2 in the air we breathe so we won't suffocate. But if we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the plant life can handle, then we are going to deplete our own O2 supplies. Considering how much we are destroying the plant life of both the oceans and the land, it might be a good idea to slow down how much excess, unnecessary CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere. Also, climate research can help us better determine when some natural, cyclic occurrences most likely may occur and/or what causes them to occur so that we can look for signs that they are about to happen. This may help us to better plan for such occurrences. Doing climate research can also help us to predict what kind of conditions to expect during certain natural weather cycles. Especially when we haven't had experience with them in recent history or even in human history, but they have occurred before in Earth's history.

You cannot just discount the benefits of all climate research because you disapprove of AGW research, no more than someone could discount the benefits of all space research just because they don't approve of constellation research simply because it has no obviously, immediate benefit to us.

Of course your first mistake is to assume that there is any warming in the first place.

Your second mistake is to assume that what we have experienced in the last 100 years is a "norm" for this planet.

Now answer this simple question…… why would it be bad if we could once again grow Wheat in Greenland?
 
All this research is pretty pointless. We have no capacity to alter the climate in our favor.

It's not pointless at all..... if your real goal is just to be able to scare people so they won't bitch when you tax them out of all but a very meager existence…. Then it makes perfect sense.
 
A convenient excuse for someone who has no response to any of the questions I posed.



What the hell are you talking about!? Sheesh!

I never said "climate change" wasn't real. I asked you to define "climate change" and explain why it should concern me. Of course, you can probably do neither, which is why you have chosen to make inane references to Limbaugh and Hannity, two people whose opinions me nothing to me.

My information is simple fact and logic; I would invite you to utilize these tools.

OK, so I'm a glutton for punishment. Let's see if anyone cares what I'm about to write, or is simply going to post yet another non response.

Here's the post you're referring to, along with my responses:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
OK, that is where my analogy breaks down. A train hitting a car is a pretty negative thing, particularly with people inside it.

On the other hand, if the car is a junker and the people do get out, then it isn't so bad.

We don't know whether global climate change will be a disaster. It may be in some places, may actually help others. The problem is, we really don't know.

It would be better if we would find out what is coming and quit arguing over what is already known, but, of course, we won't.

Your response:
What is there to figure out? Also, "anything could happen" is not a rational basis for policy.

Well, the words "anything could happen" isn't included in my post. I'm not sure just where you got it. As for what is there to figure out, once again, it is the likely effects of global climate change we should be trying to figure out.



I mean, a meteorite COULD come blazing through your roof and into your skull, we just don't know!!! Methinks your roof needs some lead plating in order to preempt such an eventuality. Just give me $10,000 and I'll make sure this disaster never befalls you!

Now, there's a non sequiter if I've ever read one, and has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've posted on this thread at all, period.

Quote:
So, it really doesn't matter. Global climate change is real, that much is established.

Define "global climate change" and explain why we should care.

OK, so there's the question I didn't answer. Here goes:

Global climate change is the changes in local climate all over the globe caused by the rise in average temperature of the Earth. Some parts of the Earth are getting colder, others warmer, some wetter, others drier, as a result of climate change.

OK, so come back with a response to climate change being a disaster once again. That will convince me beyond any doubt that you haven't read a word I've posted.
Quote:
It is likely that human activities are accelerating it, that much is established.

Your language suggests that you are a scientific layperson. Something that is "established" as being "likely" means absolutely nothing. Moreover, no such thing has been established; I defy you to prove otherwise.

Yes, I am a scientific layperson, just as I suspect you are. Yes, it has been established that it is probable that human activities are accelerating climate change. It has just about been proven beyond a doubt, but there is still some room for debate on that point. It really doesn't matter one way or the other anyway.

Quote:
It is going to have some negative impacts in come places, that much is also established.
Yea, like those melting glaciers in the Himalayas!? That was also "established".

Like these melting glaciers in the Himalayas? No, not really. That the glaciers re melting there has been established, and photographed. I mean more like where the effects are still unknown, like here in California for example. What is global warming going to do to the snowpack on which agriculture in the valley depends? Are we going to get less snow, but more rain? Will there be less precipitation in total? Could we actually get more precip? No one knows. We do know that California produces a significant portion of the fruit and nut crops used in the US and exported to other countries.

We don't know what global warming is going to do to agriculture here. Wouldn't it be better if we did?

Quote:
Will it be a disaster? What will the effects be? Can we actually mitigate it? None of that is established. Were human beings wiser, we would put our energy into finding those things out, but, being foolish, we won't.

So, what does it matter?

You sound like the McDonald's kid..."It could happen!"

No, I sound more like an adult saying, "Let's find out what is likely to happen instead of yammering on about disasters and conspiracies. Let's use science, logic, and fact instead of trying to deny it and cling to disproved notions.

Or not. As I keep saying, we (humans ) are not rational enough to study a phenomenon like global climate change and prepare for it. We'd much rather debate about whether a looming disaster is coming, or whether the world's scientists are just wrong.

Neither side of that debate is correct.
 
Of course your first mistake is to assume that there is any warming in the first place.

Your second mistake is to assume that what we have experienced in the last 100 years is a "norm" for this planet.

Now answer this simple question…… why would it be bad if we could once again grow Wheat in Greenland?

Most evidence/research shows that the Earth is globally warming, even that outside of AGW.

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

I can find several other sites to support that global warming is happening, whether do to a normal cycle or actually do to human activities, with just
[GOOGLE]global warming[/GOOGLE]

As for your second point, what? I don't know if what we are experiencing, climate or weather related, is normal or not. It isn't too big of a leap to believe that it could be natural, just as for me it really isn't too big a leap to believe that we could be affecting the Earth's climate. I don't know either way. I do know that there are natural events that occur on this Earth and generally happen in much longer of an expanse of time than we live on this Earth. At one of the National Parks in Wyoming, they were doing research on evidence from fossils and soil samples, that the area alternates between flooded with fresh water, dry, and flooded with salt water, then dry again. The evidence shows that this has occurred several times throughout the Earth's history, but has never actually been recorded/reported by humans. I heard this at the park and saw some of the evidence. But whether the weather we are currently experiencing is a part of a natural, normal cycle, is being significantly affected by human activities, but still would have occurred in the future or if what we are seeing is completely being caused by humans is actually not my main point in any of this. I just believe that almost all of the environmental efforts/legislation to "go green" is good for the overall health of the planet anyway.

I'm not saying it is bad, if it happens naturally. I just don't think that we should be forcing the planet to accept so much damage from us just because we can. And, taking positive steps to reduce how much we mess up the planet, and to in fact, try to reverse some of the pollution/damage we have already caused is a good thing for us right now, and for future generations.
 
Most evidence/research shows that the Earth is globally warming, even that outside of AGW.

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

I can find several other sites to support that global warming is happening, whether do to a normal cycle or actually do to human activities, with just
[GOOGLE]global warming[/GOOGLE]

As for your second point, what? I don't know if what we are experiencing, climate or weather related, is normal or not. It isn't too big of a leap to believe that it could be natural, just as for me it really isn't too big a leap to believe that we could be affecting the Earth's climate. I don't know either way. I do know that there are natural events that occur on this Earth and generally happen in much longer of an expanse of time than we live on this Earth. At one of the National Parks in Wyoming, they were doing research on evidence from fossils and soil samples, that the area alternates between flooded with fresh water, dry, and flooded with salt water, then dry again. The evidence shows that this has occurred several times throughout the Earth's history, but has never actually been recorded/reported by humans. I heard this at the park and saw some of the evidence. But whether the weather we are currently experiencing is a part of a natural, normal cycle, is being significantly affected by human activities, but still would have occurred in the future or if what we are seeing is completely being caused by humans is actually not my main point in any of this. I just believe that almost all of the environmental efforts/legislation to "go green" is good for the overall health of the planet anyway.

I'm not saying it is bad, if it happens naturally. I just don't think that we should be forcing the planet to accept so much damage from us just because we can. And, taking positive steps to reduce how much we mess up the planet, and to in fact, try to reverse some of the pollution/damage we have already caused is a good thing for us right now, and for future generations.

You missed the question about Greenland.... I wonder why?

Greenland is the biggest island in the world, nominally part of Denmark, but virtually uninhabited and moreover largely uninhabitable. But it wasn't always so.

When you come to think about it, Greenland is a pretty weird name for anyone to give to a country that is now 99% glacier or barren rock and 1% lichens. Not the sort of name that springs to mind for such a grey, treeless and windswept place, is it?

But wait. A thousand years ago, Greenland was settled by the Vikings, who prospered, and grew wheat and flax there, and it was at that time that it received its name.

It was, 1,000 years ago, genuinely a green land.

At about the same time, monks in Yorkshire were tending their vines.

If the Vikings could grow wheat in Greenland, and monks in Yorkshire could grow grapes, it was pretty certain that those two spots did not enjoy the same climatic blessings as they do today.

GREENLAND AND GLOBAL WARMING

I have no problem with a greener, friendlier, cleaner world. What I have a problem with is the efforts to legislate that world and enact measures that will destroy our economy using the fraud of "The Global Warming" scam just so the libs have more money for their social programs..... and that is all Cap and Tax is. That is all any of the libs "energy policies" are.
 
You missed the question about Greenland.... I wonder why?



GREENLAND AND GLOBAL WARMING

I have no problem with a greener, friendlier, cleaner world. What I have a problem with is the efforts to legislate that world and enact measures that will destroy our economy using the fraud of "The Global Warming" scam just so the libs have more money for their social programs..... and that is all Cap and Tax is. That is all any of the libs "energy policies" are.

Actually, that's what my last paragraph was addressing. I don't mind it does happen, if it's occurring naturally. Most likely, the shifts in both those lands to having different climates from 1000 years ago was natural. I realize that sometimes my posts are missing things, but I usually have to attend to screaming babies while writing them.

And, to me, saying the economy will be destroyed by green-friendly legislation is just as bad as believing that man-made global warming is going to cause us all to become extinct in the very near future. They both are a bit over the top to me. I don't agree with simply enacting legislation that would most likely hurt our economy significantly without finding ways to possibly offset the impact, but I still agree with go-green legislation. Some businesses will always be trying to maximize their profits without one iota of a thought about how some of their business practices might be affecting the environment, and the only way to convince these businesses that they can't continue to do such things just for their own greed is to punish them for doing it, generally done through fines. What some people do for greed does negatively affect the rest of us.

I have never been the kind of person to put the economy over the environment. I would rather future generations be able to have a chance to live on a clean Earth, but have to forage/hunt/fish for their own food, and build their own houses, and do without all of our technology, than to allow the world to be completely destroyed, if we can prevent it, because some people now are worried about their own pocketbooks and possibly having to go without.
 
Goshin said:
For all of humanity's combined works to equal 1% of the mass of the atmosphere, we'd have to expand our production capacity about 10,000 fold...yes that's ten thousand fold.

We aren't even dust in the wind.

This is the main reason I am skeptical of AGW.



Nobody seems to want to address this fact, or consider how it relates to the matter at hand. How odd.
 
Nobody seems to want to address this fact, or consider how it relates to the matter at hand. How odd.

I'm not sure just how it relates to GW or the probable effects thereof. If your information is accurate, it does raise some questions about the A in the AGW.

Do you have a source?
 
I'm not sure just how it relates to GW or the probable effects thereof. If your information is accurate, it does raise some questions about the A in the AGW.

Do you have a source?

I posted my calculations with sources for my data, several pages ago.

I think it not only speaks to the questionability of AGW, but also suggests that there is likely nothing we can do to affect climate change at all.
 
I posted my calculations with sources for my data, several pages ago.

I think it not only speaks to the questionability of AGW, but also suggests that there is likely nothing we can do to affect climate change at all.

OK, here it is:

Best I can figure, that's about five thousand TRILLION tons.

The total mass of humanity:
7 billion humans at 70kg each = 490 billion kg. That's 490 million tons, or 0.000000098 of the mass of the atmosphere.

If we assume that each human comes along with a ton of mass of industrial product (share of housing, transporation, manufacturing, etc...bearing in mind that much of the world doesn't own much, so one ton is probably about avg), that's another 7 billion tons... or 0.0000014, for a whopping total of all humanity and all humanity's works equalling 0.000001498 of the mass of the atmosphere.

Okay this is just an estimate, but I'll bet it is within an order of magnitude of being correct. WE ARE TINY compared to the Earth.

For all of humanity's combined works to equal 1% of the mass of the atmosphere, we'd have to expand our production capacity about 10,000 fold...yes that's ten thousand fold.

At first glance, I thought you were comparing the mass of people with the atmosphere, and so ignored the rest of the post. I see that was wrong. You are saying that, if all of Earth's 7 billion people produced a ton of greenhouse gasses on average, that would amount to 7 billion tons.

Your calculations depend on the idea that each human being is responsible for about a ton of gasses released into the atmosphere.

Is that assumption credible?

I wonder.
,
According to this, coal fired electric generators produced 2,214,837,000 metric tons of CO2 in 1998 alone, and slightly more in 1999. Assuming that the total hasn't gone down, that industry has produced 2.2 x10^10 tons all by itself in the past decade alone. That doesn't account for automobiles, other types of fuel use, or the rest of the world. The US has about 5% of the world's population.

I think your estimate of 7 x10^9 for all of humanity is off by at least a couple of orders of magnitude, probably more.
 
OK, here it is:



At first glance, I thought you were comparing the mass of people with the atmosphere, and so ignored the rest of the post. I see that was wrong. You are saying that, if all of Earth's 7 billion people produced a ton of greenhouse gasses on average, that would amount to 7 billion tons.

Your calculations depend on the idea that each human being is responsible for about a ton of gasses released into the atmosphere.

Is that assumption credible?

I wonder.
,
According to this, coal fired electric generators produced 2,214,837,000 metric tons of CO2 in 1998 alone, and slightly more in 1999. Assuming that the total hasn't gone down, that industry has produced 2.2 x10^10 tons all by itself in the past decade alone. That doesn't account for automobiles, other types of fuel use, or the rest of the world. The US has about 5% of the world's population.

I think your estimate of 7 x10^9 for all of humanity is off by at least a couple of orders of magnitude, probably more.


As I said, an estimate.

Okay, let's go with your figures and see what it comes to. Let's start with 2.2x10^10 and double it just for the hell of it.

5000 trillion tons of atmo / 2.2x10^10 = 0.0000044

0.0000044 of the mass of the atmosphere. Still tiny. That's 44 parts per 10 million, or to put it better 4.4 parts-per-million.

That means if I put 250,000 dots on a (really big) page, then put one dot by itself, the one dot represents your figures doubled.

My past research has indicated that human contribution to greenhouse gasses comprised on the close order of 1 part in 1,250 of all greenhouse gasses (water vapor being the big one, accounting for about 94% of all greenhouse-effect gasses, caused by ocean evaporation mainly.)

AGW just isn't very credible when viewed from that perspective.
 
As I said, an estimate.

Okay, let's go with your figures and see what it comes to. Let's start with 2.2x10^10 and double it just for the hell of it.

5000 trillion tons of atmo / 2.2x10^10 = 0.0000044

0.0000044 of the mass of the atmosphere. Still tiny. That's 44 parts per 10 million, or to put it better 4.4 parts-per-million.

That means if I put 250,000 dots on a (really big) page, then put one dot by itself, the one dot represents your figures doubled.

My past research has indicated that human contribution to greenhouse gasses comprised on the close order of 1 part in 1,250 of all greenhouse gasses (water vapor being the big one, accounting for about 94% of all greenhouse-effect gasses, caused by ocean evaporation mainly.)

AGW just isn't very credible when viewed from that perspective.

No, seen from that perspective, the A in AGW is questionable. However, looking at CO2, the increase has be en 36% over the past century, about 3/4 of which is attributable to human activity. That amounts to a 27% increase that can be attributed to the A in AGW. So, why look at CO2, and not H20? Well, the amount of carbon dioxide is constant, while the amount of water vapor is not. The warming caused by the carbon dioxide, in fact, also increases the content of water vapor, as warm air holds more of the stuff than cold air does. Here, we have a feedback loop.

Still, you are absolutely correct that the difference is very small. Carbon dioxide is a small component of the atmosphere, so that 27% increase doesn't translate to a lot in absolute terms.

So, why can't human contribution to the equation be dismissed?

The fact is that the warming of the Earth is also very small. Scientists tell us that the average temperature of the Earth, averaging winter, summer, tropics, arctic, everything, is about 86% F, and that that has increased from about 85% in the past century. Now, that's not a lot.

If you stop to consider that the 1 degree increase is really 1 degree out of well over 500 degrees absolute, since zero degrees F is really just an arbitrary temperature. Absolute zero is about -451 degrees.

So, what is the point of all that? The increase in temperature is 1 degree out of over 500, or less than two tenths of a percent.

So, not much increase in CO2 has resulted in a very small increase in average temperature.

Still, you may be right that human activities are not a part of the equation. Most scientists think they are, but there is no absolute proof of that.

Further, if it is 86 degrees or 85 degrees, outside, most of us wouldn't notice the difference, so what does it matter?

The average temperature overall translates to greater differences in some places than others. Some places, like Northern Europe for example, may actually be getting cooler.

The problem is the average temperature on the mountaintops (see also, melting glaciers) and that in the Arctic (melting ice caps).

Is global warming an impending disaster? We don't know. Will it result in benefits in some places? probably. Will it negatively impact some places? Without a doubt.

What is the final result likely to be in any given place?

Now, there is the prize question, the one we should be researching instead of emitting tons of hot air into the atmosphere trying to either deny global warming, or use it to impose taxes that may not be necessary.
 
Neither. Cut the majority of government programs, give the Americans their money back and let the free market thrive.
 
No, seen from that perspective, the A in AGW is questionable. However, looking at CO2, the increase has be en 36% over the past century, about 3/4 of which is attributable to human activity. That amounts to a 27% increase that can be attributed to the A in AGW. So, why look at CO2, and not H20? Well, the amount of carbon dioxide is constant, while the amount of water vapor is not. The warming caused by the carbon dioxide, in fact, also increases the content of water vapor, as warm air holds more of the stuff than cold air does. Here, we have a feedback loop.

Still, you are absolutely correct that the difference is very small. Carbon dioxide is a small component of the atmosphere, so that 27% increase doesn't translate to a lot in absolute terms.

So, why can't human contribution to the equation be dismissed?

The fact is that the warming of the Earth is also very small. Scientists tell us that the average temperature of the Earth, averaging winter, summer, tropics, arctic, everything, is about 86% F, and that that has increased from about 85% in the past century. Now, that's not a lot.

If you stop to consider that the 1 degree increase is really 1 degree out of well over 500 degrees absolute, since zero degrees F is really just an arbitrary temperature. Absolute zero is about -451 degrees.

So, what is the point of all that? The increase in temperature is 1 degree out of over 500, or less than two tenths of a percent.

So, not much increase in CO2 has resulted in a very small increase in average temperature.

Still, you may be right that human activities are not a part of the equation. Most scientists think they are, but there is no absolute proof of that.

Further, if it is 86 degrees or 85 degrees, outside, most of us wouldn't notice the difference, so what does it matter?

The average temperature overall translates to greater differences in some places than others. Some places, like Northern Europe for example, may actually be getting cooler.

The problem is the average temperature on the mountaintops (see also, melting glaciers) and that in the Arctic (melting ice caps).

Is global warming an impending disaster? We don't know. Will it result in benefits in some places? probably. Will it negatively impact some places? Without a doubt.

What is the final result likely to be in any given place?

Now, there is the prize question, the one we should be researching instead of emitting tons of hot air into the atmosphere trying to either deny global warming, or use it to impose taxes that may not be necessary.



Congratulations, you have been promoted to the position of Goshin's Favorite Warmer. You have recieved this award for being capable of civil discussion, reasoned debate, open-mindedness and a willingness to consider other views.

No other DP Warmer has ever come close to winning this title!

Hoorah for DHN! :mrgreen:



Seriously, kudos to you for debating in an open, civil and reasonable manner. Would that my previous encounters with Climate Change persons had been similar, but they generally aren't.
 
Congratulations, you have been promoted to the position of Goshin's Favorite Warmer. You have recieved this award for being capable of civil discussion, reasoned debate, open-mindedness and a willingness to consider other views.

No other DP Warmer has ever come close to winning this title!

Hoorah for DHN! :mrgreen:


Seriously, kudos to you for debating in an open, civil and reasonable manner. Would that my previous encounters with Climate Change persons had been similar, but they generally aren't.


Thank you, thank you. It is quite a polarizing debate, isn't it? Somewhere between it's a myth being used by liberals to take over the country, and the sky is falling run for the hills lies the truth, however.
 
Back
Top Bottom