Global warming

[Pappadave]

What do we really know about global warming? Is it happening? Yes. Is it part of a recurring natural cycle? Apparently, the historic evidence shows many cycles. Is it caused by man-made activity? Apparently not, most cycles occurred before man existed. Is it a necessary process, does it have some beneficial effect? We don't really know. Is the environment constantly and continually changing? Yes. Should we attempt to stop the change and lock the environment into stasis? Probably not, we don't really know.

Should we attempt to interfere with this cycle? Can we? Probably not, we don't really know. Are there other possible reasons for the clamor that we must do something? Yes, fame, vanity, grants, recognition, money, power, control. Is that the driving force in this instance? Possibly, we don't really know. Should we stop all man made damage to the environment? Probably not, since that would require our extinction as a species.

Should we accept that everything changes continuously, change is inevitable, stasis is death? Yes, but we won't. Should I continue this argument? Probably not, it won't change your opinions anyway. Peace, Love, and Faith. Pappadave.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree, for the most part. We don't know with certainty, as some (primarily politicians) would have you believe.

There have been cycles in the past. Current warming hasn't been restricted to earth, so there is at least some natural cycle going on that appears to be tied to the sun. Whether and to what extent humans are exacerbating it, we don't know.

Can we do anything about it? We don't know that either. I tend to think we probably cannot. That said, though, most of the things anthropogenic warming advocates want to do are good for other reasons (e.g. I don't think anyone can argue that cutting emissions is a bad thing from a health/science perspective).

We just have to balance the knowledge we have, including the uncertainties, against the cost of doing many of the things that many are advocating, and see if they make sense.

 

[konradv]

Is it caused by man-made activity? Apparently not, most cycles occurred before man existed.

Why "apparently not"? Just because cycles occurred for other reasons in the past, doesn't mean they couldn't have a different reason now. Especially, since humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year and some of the most potent GHGs aren't even found in nature. Where do you suppose they came from?

 

[Steerpike]

Water vapor is by far the predominant greenhouse gas. Others account for small fractions by comparison.

It is true, however, that humans emit more CO2 than volcanoes. It stands to reason we're having some impact, but we don't for certain, or how much.

 

[code1211]

Is it caused by man-made activity? Apparently not, most cycles occurred before man existed.

Why "apparently not"? Just because cycles occurred for other reasons in the past, doesn't mean they couldn't have a different reason now. Especially, since humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year and some of the most potent GHGs aren't even found in nature. Where do you suppose they came from?

Assuming that this is true, then volcanos emit a very small percent of the CO2 that is contributed to the total from natural sources.

 

[Pappadave]

I know I'm a dumbass, but I'm not aware of any thing man uses or produces that wasn't found in nature. One of the major stumbling blocks in assessing environmental damage is sorting out who put the POHC there, man or nature. Many of the toxins we regulate occur naturally and we have developed analysis capabilities far beyond that of just a few short years ago. We now can detect down to parts per quadrillion and in fact have set standards and limits in that range for some toxins. When we find a site contaminated that has been is use by man for a long period of time, we need to establish the background level that occurred naturally. This is next to impossible since the ability to reach down to parts per quadrillion did not exist prior to recent times. Yes, there are sites out there essentially untouched by man with enough contamination to trigger remediation.

How far do you think we need to go? Will you give up your car? A.C.? Heating? Cooking? What's your alternative? At what cost? Can man live in this environment and not cause damage? No. Are we contributing to global warming? Probably. Should we reduce emissions? Yes, for a host of reasons beyond this one. What should govern our decisions, panic and alarm or reason and logic? Do we calmly, clearly convince the people to change their lifestyles, or do we cry havoc and loose the dogs of rule from above? Peace. Love, and Faith. Pappadave.

 

[anewhope]

What do we do when evolution can't keep up with the rate of change in technology that humans are now forced to confront?


This is probably a horrible example, but it's what comes to mind and hopefully it'll be funny.

In the movie Jurassic Park, the scientist's took knowledge they used for granted, and spliced dinosaur DNA. Those scientist's didn't earn the knowledge of bioengineering of genetic scientists before hand, they took something and didn't even realize what they had before they used it. And then everyone was eaten by dinosaurs.

And I suppose that's the glory of science, to take all the research and confirmation learned by other scientists, to use that knowledge and conduct research that pushes science to the edge.

I'm saying that when scientist's try to make breakthrough's in research(fringe Science), that's when our evolution won't be able to keep up with technology. Which will lead to self destruction.

One mistake and ....... suddenly we got a problem that we don't know how to fix, like say Global Warming. All we can do is try to not make it worse.

 

[konradv]

I know I'm a dumbass, but I'm not aware of any thing man uses or produces that wasn't found in nature. One of the major stumbling blocks in assessing environmental damage is sorting out who put the POHC there, man or nature. Many of the toxins we regulate occur naturally and we have developed analysis capabilities far beyond that of just a few short years ago. We now can detect down to parts per quadrillion and in fact have set standards and limits in that range for some toxins. When we find a site contaminated that has been is use by man for a long period of time, we need to establish the background level that occurred naturally. This is next to impossible since the ability to reach down to parts per quadrillion did not exist prior to recent times. Yes, there are sites out there essentially untouched by man with enough contamination to trigger remediation.

How far do you think we need to go? Will you give up your car? A.C.? Heating? Cooking? What's your alternative? At what cost? Can man live in this environment and not cause damage? No. Are we contributing to global warming? Probably. Should we reduce emissions? Yes, for a host of reasons beyond this one. What should govern our decisions, panic and alarm or reason and logic? Do we calmly, clearly convince the people to change their lifestyles, or do we cry havoc and loose the dogs of rule from above? Peace. Love, and Faith. Pappadave.

Who said you have to give up anything? That's the Fallacy of the False Dilemma, if you do this, then you MUST do this. I say we have to live smarter and do more to make fusion power a reality. If you're not aware that we create chemicals not found in nature, perhaps you should read up on the subject, before blindly parroting the denier line. As far as I'm concerned I'm reasonable, not panicking and feel you're the one that needs to study up on logic.,

 

[Pappadave]

You say that we have to do more to make fusion power a reality. You answered my question. Your alternative does not yet exist. When I stated the we have not created any chemical, you misunderstood. All of our chemicals are the result of combining, reacting, restructuring, whatever of chemicals found in nature. As God told the atheist, is you wish to prove you can match my power to create life, first you must create your own dirt. Peace, Love, and Faith. Pappadave.

 

[Old Rocks]

Iowa now produces 14% of it's electricity with wind. Wind accounted for 48 % of the new generation constructed on 2009. There are a number of manufactureres of solar that are selling their panels for less than a dollar a watt, wholesale. Occasionaly, even below a dollar a watt to the public.

Alternatives not only exist, they are starting to eat big coals lunch. Soon, as the cost to the consumer comes down, solar will be doing the same for oil companies and gasoline.

 

[Old Rocks]

Water vapor is by far the predominant greenhouse gas. Others account for small fractions by comparison.

It is true, however, that humans emit more CO2 than volcanoes. It stands to reason we're having some impact, but we don't for certain, or how much.

Well, yes, we have a damned good idea how much impact we have. Here are what some physicists have to say on the subject.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[westwall]

Water vapor is by far the predominant greenhouse gas. Others account for small fractions by comparison.

It is true, however, that humans emit more CO2 than volcanoes. It stands to reason we're having some impact, but we don't for certain, or how much.

Well, yes, we have a damned good idea how much impact we have. Here are what some physicists have to say on the subject.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Science (by that I mean the exact sciences not the hand waving of climatologists) has no idea what impact if any we are having. There have been predictions of apocalypse from the alarmists for the last 90 years and so far they have allways been wrong. In fact they have not even been close.

 

[code1211]

Iowa now produces 14% of it's electricity with wind. Wind accounted for 48 % of the new generation constructed on 2009. There are a number of manufactureres of solar that are selling their panels for less than a dollar a watt, wholesale. Occasionaly, even below a dollar a watt to the public.

Alternatives not only exist, they are starting to eat big coals lunch. Soon, as the cost to the consumer comes down, solar will be doing the same for oil companies and gasoline.

If what you are saying is true, then what I have been saying will come to pass. Without draconian and foolish central planning policies, it will just make sense to convert the sourcing of energy to the alternatives.

When it makes sense to make the change, it will happen.

In 100 years, the use of Fossil Fuels for energy will be as prevalent as the use of Whale Oil for lighting is today.

 

[Douger]

Irregardless of what causes it the pollution needs to stop.
Period.
To declare otherwise is only bleated by complete fucking morons........mostly murkins.

 

[Old Rocks]

Water vapor is by far the predominant greenhouse gas. Others account for small fractions by comparison.

It is true, however, that humans emit more CO2 than volcanoes. It stands to reason we're having some impact, but we don't for certain, or how much.

Well, yes, we have a damned good idea how much impact we have. Here are what some physicists have to say on the subject.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Science (by that I mean the exact sciences not the hand waving of climatologists) has no idea what impact if any we are having. There have been predictions of apocalypse from the alarmists for the last 90 years and so far they have allways been wrong. In fact they have not even been close.

Hmmm...... So goes old Walleyes claim. Yet all the world's Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities say otherwise. Now who are we to believe, a blowhard on an internet message board, or the real scientists?

 

[asterism]

Iowa now produces 14% of it's electricity with wind. Wind accounted for 48 % of the new generation constructed on 2009. There are a number of manufactureres of solar that are selling their panels for less than a dollar a watt, wholesale. Occasionaly, even below a dollar a watt to the public.

Alternatives not only exist, they are starting to eat big coals lunch. Soon, as the cost to the consumer comes down, solar will be doing the same for oil companies and gasoline.

A dollar a watt just for the panels? That's pretty steep. How much does the maintenance and cleaning cost by your sources?

 

[Steerpike]

Well, yes, we have a damned good idea how much impact we have. Here are what some physicists have to say on the subject.

I said we don't know for "certain." And we don't. If you claim we do, then you are dishonest.

 

[Old Rocks]

We know for certain that GHGs do increase the heat that the atmosphere retains. We do know for certain that the speed at which the Arctic is warming is much faster than anyone's models predicted. We know for certain that the Arctic Ocean clathrates are beginning to outgas, far ahead of anyone's predictions. We know for certain that the permafrost in the Artic is melting and contributing both CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere.

But you are correct. We don't know for certain when we will have reached a point where anthropogenic heating will have started a feedback that cannot be reversed. That point may be higher than now believed, or we may have already passed it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Iowa now produces 14% of it's electricity with wind. Wind accounted for 48 % of the new generation constructed on 2009. There are a number of manufactureres of solar that are selling their panels for less than a dollar a watt, wholesale. Occasionaly, even below a dollar a watt to the public.

Alternatives not only exist, they are starting to eat big coals lunch. Soon, as the cost to the consumer comes down, solar will be doing the same for oil companies and gasoline.

A dollar a watt just for the panels? That's pretty steep. How much does the maintenance and cleaning cost by your sources?

Maintenance? Virtually maintenance free if the intitial installation was done correctly. Cleaning? How much does it cost you to clean your windows? At a dollar a wat for the panels, your payback on the average house would be about five years. Where the electrical rates are cheap. If you had a plug in hybrid, or EV, it would be in a much shorter time.

 

[westwall]

Well, yes, we have a damned good idea how much impact we have. Here are what some physicists have to say on the subject.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Science (by that I mean the exact sciences not the hand waving of climatologists) has no idea what impact if any we are having. There have been predictions of apocalypse from the alarmists for the last 90 years and so far they have allways been wrong. In fact they have not even been close.

Hmmm...... So goes old Walleyes claim. Yet all the world's Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities say otherwise. Now who are we to believe, a blowhard on an internet message board, or the real scientists?

And what exactly has their "consensus" (well 74 unnamed scientists to be exact) and expenditure of 100 billion dollars accomplished?