1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Anyone Not believe we are causing Global Warming?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Abaddon, Dec 26, 2006.

?

Do Humans cause Global Warming?

  1. Yes - American

    33.2%
  2. No - American

    11.5%
  3. Yes - Non American

    48.4%
  4. No - Non American

    6.9%
  1. Sidhe

    Sidhe Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,987
    Location:
    England
    There's a nail, and I think you've just hit squarely on the head.:) If Basket Case ever knows what is going on, we might just listen to his weak arguments.
     
  2. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    If my arguments were weak, somebody would have at least tried to tear them down.

    If nobody does, then my work here is complete.

    Edit: So I thought. Just found something interesting on Wikipedia: it appears the global dimming trend reversed sometime around 1990.
    It would appear I'm not the only guy who came up with the idea that human cleanup efforts might have unintentionally contributed to global warming.....
     
  3. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,023
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    Your arguments have been repeatedly torn down. You just can't even see it.:lol:
     
  4. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Nope. None of them were. In fact, many of them were never challenged at all.

    The ironic part is that many of them weren't even invented by me--but by environmentalists.
     
  5. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,023
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    ...even nore ironic: they all believe in global warming and you don't.
     
  6. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Which is another problem with the global warming advocacy--peer pressure.
     
  7. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,023
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    Or maybe they can interpret evidence.
     
  8. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    To summarize: whether humans are the cause of global warming cannot be known unless most or all of the variables in the CO2 "budget" are known. And they're not.

    Also, there's more than one explanation of where what we're seeing today might come from.

    And there's no reason you should consider my heretical ideas dangerous--because I said myself that all of them are theoretical.

    Thread's pretty much dead, so I'm done for now.
     
  9. azzaman333

    azzaman333 meh

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    22,877
    Location:
    Melbourne, AUS Reputation:131^(9/2)
    I haven't seen BC say (in this thread at least) that we SHOULDN'T be trying to reduce CO2 emissions, rather just saying we don't know all of the effects causing the global warming, and to what extent.
     
  10. Abaddon

    Abaddon Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    31,187
    Location:
    NES/FG/SF Activity:Arguing the toss
    But we know they are causeing some of the effects, so why not at least try?
     
  11. azzaman333

    azzaman333 meh

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    22,877
    Location:
    Melbourne, AUS Reputation:131^(9/2)
    EXACTLY!!!!!! Thats what I said!!!!!!!
     
  12. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Actually, Azzaman, in a previous GW thread I did mention a few scenarios in which cutting CO2 emissions might be bad. All of them are entirely hypothetical.

    Dr. William Ruddiman (a recently-retired Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and who says humans ARE causing global warming) theorizes that human activity actually prevented a currently-overdue Ice Age from starting. If true, reducing CO2 emissions might allow said Ice Age to start.

    The Exit Mundi web site (who in turn got this next idea from somebody else, I know not who) raised this idea: as CO2 levels rise, plants grow faster and soak up the CO2 at an increased rate. Then humans institute extensive programs to reduce CO2 emissions. So humans stop emitting--but the plants are still there, and still consuming CO2 at the increased rate. Hypothetical result: a CO2 crash to near-zero levels--and the planet turns into an ice cube.

    Third, the video mentioned in the Global Dimming thread, raised this idea: global warming and global dimming compete with each other. If we reduce particulate pollution without reducing CO2 levels, we allow more solar energy in, which might make global warming worse. If we reduce CO2 levels without reducing particulate pollution, we might make the planet too cold.


    Again, all three of these ideas are purely maybes--and (again) none of them was invented by me. :)

    That said, I have no objection to a CO2 scrubber on my car. And I certainly have no objection to further research on the subject. What I have a problem with is when people go "Omigod!! GLOBAL WARMING!!! DROP EVERYTHING!!!" and have a damn panic attack. That doesn't help anybody. And I have a problem with radical global warming activists who work to squash dissenting ideas. One of those dissenting ideas might turn out to be right.

    The global dimming idea embodies my concerns perfectly: in trying to combat pollution, we may have actually made the problem worse. Whatever action we take, we have to be ready for that.
     
  13. Sidhe

    Sidhe Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,987
    Location:
    England
    This was debunked on the thread with Gothmog, Scientists currently see us at about a halfway point, but of course it's hard to be sure.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

    As has already been mentioned though we're deforresting large areas of the planet. Plus it doesn't work like that, an area can only grow to a size it's soil etc will support, most areas are cut back when they begin to infringe on humans anyway. The growth will not shoot up at all, it may increase a little but rain forests support just about as much plantlife per square metre as is possible.

    Global dimming is an effect but it's being overcome by the warming. The sun is reaching a peak output at the moment, which should help to slow down global warming when it starts to revert back to a lower output. But global dimming is not significant enough to disturb the figures over a sustained period. This is taken into account when they make models anyway.

    They've also been looked into and accounted for by climatologists.

    The dimming idea may be a mitigating factor but it is already accounted for. You'll have to do better than that I'm afraid

    Global dimming article NS

     
  14. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    If you want to say something is definitely not happening, you have to be sure.

    Life is always deforesting the planet; animals have been consuming plants ever since evolution got started. Humans deforest? Forests grow back. Sometimes with human help. Humans are removing biomass in some areas, and replacing it in others--sometimes with other trees, sometimes with farms. Or sometimes we put farms in previously barren areas that had no plants at all. As a lifelong member of Boy Scouts of America, I myself have planted more trees than any three Greenpeace activists. (A curious irony of BSA; we are conservatives and environmentalists at the same time.)

    Again, the problem is you have to know income AND expenditures (not just one of the two) to know what is happening.


    Most of the world is non-rain-forest. (Why do environmentalists keep obsessing about rain forests??) The primary source of the planet's oxygen is the oceans. Which are three-dimensional, and have plenty of space for free-floating microscopic plants. The only practical limit on plant growth is the combined effects of the available supply of carbon dioxide, water, sunlight, and trace elements.

    Edit: Whoa, hold on a second---who said the rain forests are at their limit anyway??? That claim seems completely arbitrary, and I've seen plenty in real life to disagree with it (such as experiments done by my own hand).​

    Further still: a surplus of any one nutriet allows a plant to make more efficient use of the others. Give a fire more oxygen, it burns more cleanly--and produces more energy from the same amount of fuel. Give humans more oxygen, they have more energy. Give humans more water, and they are healthier even without more food or more oxygen. Give plants more CO2, and they grow even if sunlight and water remain the same. That's what's happening in the FACE experiments.


    I got you to admit the boldface part, so I've already accomplished plenty.

    I was never looking for you to say "global warming is not happening". Just be open to "maybe" ideas.
     
  15. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,023
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    Easter Island.
     
  16. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Rest of the planet trumps Easter Island. :)

    By the way, something from the FACE experiments which I hadn't noticed before:
    Curious, isn't it....?
     
  17. Fifty

    Fifty !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    10,649
    Location:
    an ecovillage in madagascar
    yo i think global warmin be the troof, & im american
     
  18. FriendlyFire

    FriendlyFire Codex WMDicanious

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    19,006
    Location:
    Sydney
    you ARE AWARE that the concenses at that time and now was that both dimming and warming was occuring at the same time right ?
     
  19. StarWorms

    StarWorms Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,348
    Location:
    England
    I'm afraid you miss the point entirely. Forests ARE NOT growing back as we continue to deforest them faster than they can regrow. We are not deforesting sustainably in places like rainforests. Animals and plants live in a balance. Animals NEED plants to survive. Get rid of the plants and you get extinction of both plants and animals that depend on those species.

    Rainforests alone contain around 2/3 of all living species of plants and animals (according to Wikipedia). That is why it's very important. Oceans have a very large portion too (possibly more than). However it's far easier to manage something on relatively small areas of land rather than vast oceans.
     
  20. batteryacid

    batteryacid Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    449
    Thats so wrong: Photosynthesis on land fixes about 110 gt CO2 per year, in the the ocean ~50 GT/year, you should just take a closer look on the figures I and others have presented here. This fact is easily explained with some very BASIC physics: The Volume in which the photosynthesis takes place is IRRELEVANT ; the only relevant number is the number of photons hitting the surface per area, which is THE SAME for land and sea for identical degree of latitude.

    But the differences between land and sea is that water ABSORBS a large amount of the photons before they can hit some algea, thus the much lesser efficiency compared to land.

    BTW to say that the rain forest is not a three dimensional system compared to sea is very bold and very wrong; for example the rainforest parted into 5 botanic layers (concerning height). The sheer density of leaves with different shades of green make them the most efficient areas for photosynthesis on this planet.
     

Share This Page