Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

[Berzerker]

Extinct is fine?

Why are they around today? Its been warmer in the past, and they still dont have to compete with us for space - they're better off than a lot of the critters in our way.

 

[countrygrl]

So what? Human breathing is the same. The CO2 goesn't go back into the system until you eat a cheeseburger and belch. Actually, a more alarming contribution to global warming would be the gas that comes out the other end of your digestive tract after you eat a cheeseburger...... They're all closed systems.

Do you honestly believe that combusting billions of tons of fossil fuels that would otherwise have never combusted and turned to stone is closed loop? That's not closed loop at all. That is human interference that results in the artificial manipulation of our climate from its natural ambient condition. The closed loop would be the oil turning to coal, which will turn to stone, which will be subsumed into center of the earth. Even when fossil fuels naturally leach into the environment they are not [/b]combusted[/b] into the atmosphere. And that is a natural process anyhow. Anthropogenic greenhouse warming isn't anthropogenic because it's a natural closed loop cycle.

 

[Berzerker]

whats wrong with that? The natural ambient condition aint so hot

Seriously, look at climate records going way back - life does better in a warmer world, and its been much warmer in the past, and life flourished. Our major problem is melting ice and sea levels... And it appears plate tectonics may be helping us out with that, there's evidence the ocean will "soon" invade the northern end of the E African rift zone - and we could help if need be. The barrier holding the sea back now are a few low lying hills. A small but growing inland sea in that barren desert would help moderate the local climate and lower sea levels a tad.

 

[Cutlass]

Why are they around today? Its been warmer in the past, and they still dont have to compete with us for space - they're better off than a lot of the critters in our way.

Because their habitat has only started to get really screwed up in the past 10 years or so.

 

[countrygrl]

So you prefer rising oceans, mass extinctions, desertification, degraded air quality, whole portions of earth environmentally destroyed for centuries as opposed to the natural ambient condition?

 

[Berzerker]

Because their habitat has only started to get really screwed up in the past 10 years or so.

How so? They've lived thru warmer periods with higher sea levels and less ice, and mile high ice sheets covering much of the N hemisphere. We dont wanna live that far north, they got it made. Their food sources will be better off in a slightly warmer world too, longer growing seasons etc means more food and animals to eat it.

So you prefer rising oceans, mass extinctions, desertification, degraded air quality, whole portions of earth environmentally destroyed for centuries as opposed to the natural ambient condition?

The natural ambient condition is a cooling trend with cold snaps like the little ice age thrown in just to make people long for a warmer world. Yes, I prefer rising sea levels; that means more fresh water, more rain, and more life. I prefer rising seas even if we dont lift a finger to sequester water in natural reservoirs. But like I said, plate tectonics is about to lower sea levels for us, the desert in NE Africa will soon have an inland sea to moderate the climate. And deserts grow during cooling trends, not warming trends. Thats one of the ways we know when past climates were warmer or cooler, the amount of dust in the air from.... deserts. And a slightly warmer world aint causing any mass extinctions...

 

[countrygrl]

More fresh water? Global warming and our unsustainable way of life is creating a dire situation for roughly 2.5 billion people on this planet. The entire American west is in jeopardy of losing their water supply due anthropogenic climate change. Almost all of sub-saharan Africa is in jeopardy of losing their water supply because of climate change. Tribe are already fighting over water in areas of Africa because they've been displaced to places that they're not native to. How does desertification and draining mangrove forests so we can grow cheap beef result in more fresh water to drink? More rain doesn't mean more fresh water to drink either. It means that more rain is falling in more concentrated areas that don't need it, while other areas become rain starved due to diverted air currents from all the additional heat energy in our atmosphere. Also, North Africa will NOT have new ocean in the timeline we're talking about. We're talking about decades, you're talking about millenia.

Deserts can grow during cooling trends, but we're not talking about a world without humans. We're talking about a world with humans that are devastating this planet in every imaginable way possible. This is resulting in wildly accelerated desertification when it may otherwise be growing due to warming. But your "science" is disputed to its core as most science indicates that trade winds that create rainforests and deserts will be altered in a way that promotes enlarged deserts as opposed to smaller ones, despite an overall increase in water vapor content.

 

[Berzerker]

yes, more fresh water - nothing you said changes that. You point to over population and blame it on the climate. Deserts grow during cooling trends, and we're in a cooling trend with a reduced monsoon track due to changing axial tilt (hence the cooling trend) - thats why the Sahara is growing, it aint got nothing to do with us.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Based on long-term data, the next ice age is slated to occur any time now.

Of course, in geological terms, that could be tens of thousands of years from now.

 

[choxorn]

Seriously, look at climate records going way back - life does better in a warmer world, and its been much warmer in the past, and life flourished.

But life doesn't like abrupt changes in the climate. It needs time to adapt.

 

[Tani Coyote]

When someone says that hydrogen, nuclear, and hydroelectric as much better alternative energies, I distrust that on basic principles. Where does this hydrogen come from? It's a net loss of energy to separate hydrogen from water and then use it as a fuel. So that's certainly not an alternative energy source. Hydroelectric isn't really all that good of a choice, because the limitations on the locations that hydro can be added and not have other environmental impacts has pretty well been reached. Nuclear has advantages, but the creation of the fuel for a nuclear power plant is environmentally ugly in the extreme. As is the storage of the waste afterward.

I'm amazed he didn't mention geothermal personally.

I think the real conclusion is there is no flawless energy source - every single one has a downside. Sounds like a variety of renewable energy sources is the only real solution for the short-term.

Nuclear leaves behind radioactive waste and hydroelectric creates giant lakes behind the dams that drown forests and displace people. It doesn't damage the environment after it's already there, but building it does cause some damage.

Well yes, that occurred to me, but his argument was more on the basis they will give us power around the clock, unlike solar and wind.

 

[Tee Kay]

Well yes, that occurred to me, but his argument was more on the basis they will give us power around the clock, unlike solar and wind.

Ask the Venezuelans.

 

[BasketCase]

When someone says that hydrogen, <snip snip> as much better alternative energies, I distrust that on basic principles. Where does this hydrogen come from? It's a net loss of energy to separate hydrogen from water and then use it as a fuel. So that's certainly not an alternative energy source.

I should probably start with this, because it's just so damn rare. Me and Cutlass actually agreeing on something!
(I disagree with him about nuclear power, so I snipped that part)


There, the touchy-feely crap is done. Time for the part I really enjoy: being cranky!

But a very pro-environment ex-Greenpeace member also came onto the show and said the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by ideologues and isn't science based like before.

Bingo. When a PRO-environment guy says the global warming science has a problem, then the global warming science has a problem. Ergh. Drat. Wait a minute, that wasn't cranky at all. Dang it. Give me a second, the cranky is on the way!

But back on topic - even if the planet isn't being affected in this manner, pro-environment methods will create cleaner air, sustainable development, a more beautiful planet, and water that doesn't mutate your children. Is that so bad?

Right here in this thread, one of those items you just listed was described as a possible cause of global warming. And I don't think it was me who first mentioned that. I suppose I could just leave you in suspense so you'll read through the list and figure it out yourself, but you probably won't. It's the first one. When I was a kid, past efforts to eliminate pollution focused only on the actual dirt. On soot and other particulate crap. As the oil fires in Kuwait during the (first) Persian Gulf War demonstrated, when there's a lot of soot in the air, the environment underneath is colder. A lot colder. Kuwait registered cooling of up to ten degrees Celsius. So, in the 70's, when the air was dirty and we started to clean up the dirt? What do you suppose happened? The planet almost certainly got warmer.

When I was a kid, pro-environment clean-air efforts may have been the actual cause of modern global warming from the very beginning. So there's your answer: yes. Your efforts could indeed be "so bad". Your cleanup work could be THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM.

If you actually read what El_Mac posted, higher CO2 is beneficial to plants but not to us. We don't care if the plants feel good, we care about their food yield.

And that's what I was talking about. The majority of the studies (though not all of them!) do show improved food yields. Food yield aside, wouldn't the planet be better off with more plants growing on it? Absorbing more of that excess CO2? So, yes--you actually should care if the plants feel good and are happy.

You're wrong about burning fossil fuels being part of a "closed loop" on any human timeframe,

Nope. Human beings have to eat regularly, and the food that goes in their mouths always closes the loop. It's a daily time frame. So, next time you eat, think of me. (there--THAT part was cranky as hell! )

and you're wrong about polar bears being the only species threatened by global warming

I never said polar bears are the only species threatened by global warming. I said they were "just about" the only species threatened by global warming. Remember, I'm a pro at arguing (you could say I'm a master debater..... ) . I almost always use weasel words to cover my ass so you can't nail me down on anything. And if you don't see any weasel words, that's a red flag indicating I just said something VERY SIGNIFICANT. (please note the lack of weasel words in just that last sentence--because that last sentence was, itself, very significant!)

thousands and thousands are.

The number of species that are threatened by global warming is very small compared to the number of species that will benefit from global warming. Once again: why do global warming nutcases use a poster child as remote as a polar bear? Why not your common friendly house cat?

James Hansen being an anti-global warming advocate, though that was very lolzworthy.

I don't remember that one. You sure it was me? Only guy I ever remember referring to by name in a global warming debate is Dr. William Ruddiman. In any case, Hansen is an anti-global warming advocate--he is against global warming. He's trying to stop it. To the point where he's been arrested more than once. Though I'm pretty sure that's not the meaning you intended to convey.....

I like that part of an argument. The best kind of smart-assery is the kind that's true.


In fact, I think tonight I'll close with a little more of that smart-assery. Some of you called me on the carpet for not providing evidence of my claims. Fact is, I don't have to. And here's why:

I say global warming is neither all good nor all bad. It will be a random hodgepodge of good and bad effects: rising oceans, more bountiful crops, wilder weather, and less death and destruction from snowstorms (which, if you've been reading the news last few months, do far more damage than heat waves).

The above may not even be true--and that's the beauty of my position. It doesn't have to be true. What's important is, BasketCase thinks the above to be true. If BasketCase was either a global warming alarmist or a capitalist nut, he would never believe the above. The fact that BasketCase does, proves that he does not have a political agenda and that BasketCase is only interested in the real truth.


Whenever BasketCase says something, you don't need evidence to prove it. You can take him (her? ) at his word. And you can trust me on this...... (oh, come on, you all KNEW I was gonna close with that last joke! )

 

[Dragonlord]

But life doesn't like abrupt changes in the climate. It needs time to adapt.

This.

All those posts by Berzerker et.al. about how a warmer climate is beneficial and comparing the projected temperatures to other geological eras keep ignoring the real problem: the unprecedented rate of change of the temperature. It is the extremely fast (in geological terms even blindingly fast) temperature rise that will cause problems both for the environment and for us humans in particular.

I think the real conclusion is there is no flawless energy source - every single one has a downside. Sounds like a variety of renewable energy sources is the only real solution for the short-term.

on this also, very true. Just please don't lump in nuclear energy as a 'renewable' energy source. It is neither renewable nor clean nor safe nor cheap. The only positives are that it works around the clock regardless of weather and it does not contribute to global warming - granted.

I
When I was a kid, pro-environment clean-air efforts may have been the actual cause of modern global warming from the very beginning. So there's your answer: yes. Your efforts could indeed be "so bad". Your cleanup work could be THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM.

Change that to "a contributing factor to the problem" and you would actually have a point for once.

I

I almost always use weasel words to cover my ass so you can't nail me down on anything.

....

I say global warming is neither all good nor all bad.

Will wonders never cease? I actually found 2 points in a BasketCase post about global warming I can agree with?! 2 1/2 if you count the first one I corrected. A record I doubt will ever be topped...

 

[BasketCase]

Do you honestly believe that combusting billions of tons of fossil fuels that would otherwise have never combusted and turned to stone is closed loop?

Volcanoes.

Too easy. A bit of trivia: ONE volcano spews as much carbon dioxide as the entire human race does in a YEAR. All that oil and coal buried down there, supposedly forever, isn't gonna stay there. Like a JimmyJohn's sandwich, it's coming back up eventually. It's all closed loops.

All those posts by Berzerker et.al. about how a warmer climate is beneficial and comparing the projected temperatures to other geological eras keep ignoring the real problem: the unprecedented rate of change of the temperature. It is the extremely fast (in geological terms even blindingly fast) temperature rise that will cause problems both for the environment and for us humans in particular.

On the contrary. All life on the planet sees unprecedentedly-fast changes in temperature every single day. And night. Of course, the fact that it happens every day means it's no longer unprecedented.....plus there's the fact that almost all parts of the planet go from very warm to very cold in six months, then right back again in another six. Humans are the only life forms on Earth that even notice changes in climate--no other life form can tell that this summer was, say, two degrees warmer than the last one. If it warms by a lot more than that, the animals simply move (which they do anyway) and plant seeds start sprouting in other areas where they weren't germinating. Wolves are doing this right now; after being driven to extinction in the U.S., they're starting to migrate back down from Canada. They're having a tough time of it, but they just keep trying.

Life adapts. Well, all life except us. We humans are too damn stubborn.

on this also, very true. Just please don't lump in nuclear energy as a 'renewable' energy source. It is neither renewable nor clean nor safe nor cheap.

But it's cleaner and safer and cheaper than oil, and will keep us going until we've got cold fusion figured out. After that, of course, it's antimatter. Then quantum power generators and giant spiderbots.

Change that to "a contributing factor to the problem" and you would actually have a point for once.

No. I said the cause because I meant the cause. Before the 70's, according to the best temperature measurements we've got, global warming was not happening. It didn't start happening until the environmental movement of the 70's--which, as I said, was focused on particulate matter and not greenhouse gases. There's a very possible cause-and-effect deal going here. Though, note the presence of weasel words--"could" and "possible".

Will wonders never cease? I actually found 2 points in a BasketCase post about global warming I can agree with?! 2 1/2 if you count the first one I corrected. A record I doubt will ever be topped...

:rofl: Good one!

 

[Tee Kay]

A bit of trivia: ONE volcano spews as much carbon dioxide as the entire human race does in a YEAR.

Global annual anthropogenic CO2 atmospheric emissions: 26.8 billion tonnes (2003)
Global annual volcanic CO2 atmospheric emissions: 200 million tonnes (est.)

So I don't know where you got that from...

On the contrary. All life on the planet sees unprecedentedly-fast changes in temperature every single day. And night. Of course, the fact that it happens every day means it's no longer unprecedented.....plus there's the fact that almost all parts of the planet go from very warm to very cold in six months, then right back again in another six. Humans are the only life forms on Earth that even notice changes in climate--no other life form can tell that this summer was, say, two degrees warmer than the last one. If it warms by a lot more than that, the animals simply move (which they do anyway) and plant seeds start sprouting in other areas where they weren't germinating. Wolves are doing this right now; after being driven to extinction in the U.S., they're starting to migrate back down from Canada. They're having a tough time of it, but they just keep trying.

Oh 'cause their natural cycle have adapted to the daily or seasonal variations in weather over millions of years of evolution so should that climatic pattern change dramatically they'll have no trouble adapting at all right right?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So I don't know where you got that from...

"1001 misconceptions about Global Warming, you can repeat time and time again even after you've been shown wrong time and time again"
by Farty McSmellypants.

It's a best seller.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm amazed he didn't mention geothermal personally.

I think the real conclusion is there is no flawless energy source - every single one has a downside. Sounds like a variety of renewable energy sources is the only real solution for the short-term.



Well yes, that occurred to me, but his argument was more on the basis they will give us power around the clock, unlike solar and wind.

Well, the real only long-term solution is solar. It's the only technology that seems to have any type of "Moore's Law" effect going on. The other technologies have their place, especially when they're cheaper than solar.

When we go into space, it's going to be solar that we're using there too.

The only exception is if we find a way to mine uranium in an environmentally acceptable way. There's uranium available in a 'low hanging fruit' way, but it will also have to be distributed amongst 9 billion people with decent incomes.

In many global warming threads. FOR FIVE GODDAMN YEARS.

Volcanoes.

Too easy. A bit of trivia: ONE volcano spews as much carbon dioxide as the entire human race does in a YEAR.

Just so people know what they're up against in the debate. After 5 gd years, this is where the discourse is at with a denialist.

 

[Arwon]

God there's so much arrogance in a bunch of barely educated Americans thinking they can just make up anything like actual scientists haven't thought of and checked for those things. Oooh insects, ooh volcanos. Bet no-one checked that.

Wow, you god damn self-satisfied geniuses. Totally new and orgiginal liek seriously.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm amazed he didn't mention geothermal personally.

I think the real conclusion is there is no flawless energy source - every single one has a downside. Sounds like a variety of renewable energy sources is the only real solution for the short-term.

Yes, But also consider, the tech for solar and wind are changing all the time. Efficiencies are going up. So we do, as you say, need to use a variety of sources. And those sources will get better over time. Don't write any off until they've been well explored.