View Poll Results: Constellation or Climate research?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Constellation

    18 60.00%
  • Climate research

    12 40.00%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 68 of 68

Thread: Constellation or Climate Research?

  1. #61
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: Constellation or Climate Research?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    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?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #62
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Constellation or Climate Research?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #63
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: Constellation or Climate Research?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    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.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  4. #64
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Constellation or Climate Research?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #65
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: Constellation or Climate Research?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    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.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  6. #66
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,347

    Re: Constellation or Climate Research?

    Neither. Cut the majority of government programs, give the Americans their money back and let the free market thrive.


  7. #67
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Constellation or Climate Research?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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!



    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.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #68
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: Constellation or Climate Research?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    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!


    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.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •