Environment gets Bushed

[ainwood]

I think it's a good idea to keep looking at clouds. I would fully expect clouds to inject noise into any prediction, since they're a pretty important part of albedo as well as other effects.

So, what's he saying? Is he saying that chaotic clouds will reduce the impacts of increased heat retention, that they'll dissipate more heat as CO2 ppm increases? I don't know how much I follow such an idea, since I can't easily figure out a way that they can do that without changing regional weather.

Or is he saying that the climate effects of clouds (under any concentration of CO2 ppm) are so huge that the effects of CO2 are minimal?

I think he's saying that the current models don't accurately deal with clouds, and that the impact of CO2 on cloud cover leads to negative feedback, not positive feedback that is assumed in teh models (where impact on clouds is largely ignored).

 

[BasketCase]

So why are you constantly harping on about this, but ignoring the issue here: that you advocate NOT doing anything in the US unless China and India do more?

Because any progress being made in the U.S. (or anywhere else in the developed world, for that matter) is being erased as two billion people pollute more and more. And also because reduced economic growth in the U.S. means less money and resources for research on better methods to stop global warming. Fusion power? Still in the works.

Or maybe I'm just trolling.

 

[BasketCase]

I did. No additional plant matter there.

Please post a link with proof that there's no additional plant matter in your back yard. With measurements. I need you to describe how you measured the actual MASS of the plants in your yard.

See? There's no way to do that, so I know you're---errr, I was about to say something really rude, but Ainwood has been getting mad at a couple of us, and---bah. Screw it. You're full of crap.
Moderator Action: If you're going to willfully ignore my warnings in such a manner, you will likely find yourself banned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

You will have to bring proof for that 'local production, local consumption' claim. In fact, gases move a lot - it is called wind!

Easy. This one will require a little more travel than just stepping out into your back yard.

What I need you to do is travel to a smoggy city. That's all. Just drive to, say, Los Angeles and take a look. You can SEE the smog in the air.

Now drive north from L.A. to San Luis Obispo. That's a drive of around 3 hours (two hours if you drive the way I do). What will you see? You will see clear, smog-free air.

Detailed measurements of atmospheric composition bear this out. The air around cities is higher in sulfides, nitrates, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide--and lower in oxygen. The air in suburban areas a hundred miles away is not. Case closed.


Odd. There goes BasketCase saying we can measure gas concentrations around cities accurately.....well, here's the reason why. We can measure gases near cities accurately because cities are full of people and you don't have to drive a thousand miles to get samples.

In order to measure actual planetwide gas levels (i.e. to find out whether worldwide CO2 levels are actually going up) you need to measure millions of locations EVERYWHERE on the planet AT THE SAME TIME. I mean everywhere. Cities and rural areas, deserts and tundra. And also the oceans. Which we are not doing. A fairly common claim by global warming doubters is that we're doing too much measuring near cities, thereby producing bogus results.

So, where is that plant matter? Forest cover in the world is going down, down, down, from Canada to Patagonia. Denudation is widespread, desertification also. WHERE IS IT?????

If forest cover is going down and plant mass worldwide is declining......

......then planetary oxygen content should be going down. But it's not. It's clearly going down in cities--but nowhere else.

How can you explain that, Simon?

You will not explain it because the only explanation dumps global warming theory on its head. Here's the dirty little secret: if plant mass is going down but oxygen content is not, then either some new, undiscovered source must be producing oxygen (ALIENS!!!) or the few plants left on Earth are producing oxygen faster.

Until you can produce some photographs of friendly aliens who are trying to re-oxygenate our planet for us, I'm gonna stick with the second one. It's really all very simple. Oxygen levels are lower in cities because there are lots of people inhaling the stuff and lots of cars burning it. A city is kind of an oxygen sink, drawing the gas in from the surrounding area. Meanwhile, CO2 disperses into that surrounding area and gets absorbed by happy plants who are growing big and fat on all the extra food.

 

[History_Buff]

Because any progress being made in the U.S. (or anywhere else in the developed world, for that matter) is being erased as two billion people pollute more and more.

Sounds pretty bad, but turn that around. As two billion people start contributing to CO2 emissions at levels American have for years, the problem could be erased by just a little progress in the U.S.

 

[Simple Simon]

Please post a link with proof that there's no additional plant matter in your back yard. With measurements. I need you to describe how you measured the actual MASS of the plants in your yard.

See? There's no way to do that,

As you well know, this is simply wrong. Theoretically, I could dig up photographs from 10 years ago, take a photograph today, and these would show a decline quite clearly. Three trees are gone, and the grassy area has the same size, as do the flower beds. Ergo: whatever minimal gain the small plants would show is more than offset by the loss of three entire tall trees.......

What I need you to do is travel to a smoggy city. That's all. Just drive to, say, Los Angeles and take a look. You can SEE the smog in the air.

Now drive north from L.A. to San Luis Obispo. That's a drive of around 3 hours (two hours if you drive the way I do). What will you see? You will see clear, smog-free air.

Detailed measurements of atmospheric composition bear this out. The air around cities is higher in sulfides, nitrates, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide--and lower in oxygen. The air in suburban areas a hundred miles away is not. Case closed.

Which is just as easily explained by constant gas exchange and different consumption/production rates, which leads to a flucutating equilibrium. Nothing points at your claimed purely local poroduction/consumption.

And if you were right, how would you explain the fact that dust falling with the rain from the clouds in the Amazon basin can be shown to originate from the Sahara? Same as the dust born by the famous mistral winds in southern France? If wind can move dust, sure as hell is hot the air itself moves.

Ergo: you are wrong.

Odd. There goes BasketCase saying we can measure gas concentrations around cities accurately.....well, here's the reason why. We can measure gases near cities accurately because cities are full of people and you don't have to drive a thousand miles to get samples.

Do you want to imply that scientists are too stupid or lazy to collect samples elsewhere but in big cities?

Your arguments here are degenerating faster than you can type new ones - are you trolling?

In order to measure actual planetwide gas levels (i.e. to find out whether worldwide CO2 levels are actually going up) you need to measure millions of locations EVERYWHERE on the planet AT THE SAME TIME. I mean everywhere. Cities and rural areas, deserts and tundra. And also the oceans.

Nonsense - you would be correct if your local gas theory was cirght, but it is BS, so this is BS as well.

Which we are not doing. A fairly common claim by global warming doubters is that we're doing too much measuring near cities, thereby producing bogus results.

And that claim is bogus, and has been addressed about a gazillion times. Why does ID and creationism come to mind here? Oh, I know - because of the similarity in debate style! GW deniers use the same tactics employed by evolution deniers

If forest cover is going down and plant mass worldwide is declining......

......then planetary oxygen content should be going down.

Jumping to conclusions here, are you? Forest cover going down may have other effects that could increase O2 content.

But it's not. It's clearly going down in cities--but nowhere else.

So the overall avergae IS going down - qed!

You will not explain it because the only explanation dumps global warming theory on its head.

Your predictions are not really up to speed today - I already explained it

Here's the dirty little secret: if plant mass is going down but oxygen content is not, then either some new, undiscovered source must be producing oxygen (ALIENS!!!) or the few plants left on Earth are producing oxygen faster.

You said O2 is going down.... what now? Is it going down, or isn't it?

Meanwhile, CO2 disperses into that surrounding area and gets absorbed by happy plants who are growing big and fat on all the extra food.

Please, it starts getting rather repetitive: where are those mystery plants that grow so much bigger, or denser, or faster? Where is the 100-feet-high corn? The new forests covering the former plains of the West? The monster cabbages large enough to drive a rail tunnel through? Where is the additional plant matter? Given the trillions of tons of fossil CO2 we blew into the atmosphere there should be whole countries overrun by new forests!

 

[BasketCase]

Side note (this is one of those "and another thing" kinda dealies):

"Hey BasketCase, tell us where all that extra plant mass is." Why should I? I don't have to point to it to know that it's there.

It's called an "existence proof". Such a proof doesn't tell you the how, where, or why, but it does prove that something exists.


The rate at which oxygen is being consumed has gone up. That much is known fact. Six and a half billion humans, lots of cars and factories. And it's also known that the world's oxygen content is not going down (it's lower in cities ONLY, Simon--the worldwide average is not changing). Don't believe me--look it up on the web.

Since the world's plants are where we get all our oxygen, one of two things must be happening. Either worldwide plant biomass is increasing, or the same plants are producing oxygen at a faster rate. Most likely it's both.

See? I don't have to point to the extra plants. They are out there somewhere. That is FACT.

Unless somebody has been able to find those photos of the friendly space aliens?

 

[BasketCase]

Sounds pretty bad, but turn that around. As two billion people start contributing to CO2 emissions at levels American have for years, the problem could be erased by just a little progress in the U.S.

Nope. Suppose those two billion people ARE doing that.

Then you've got 2.3 billion people puffing 26 tons a year.

Now suppose the United States cuts its output in half--which is actually a lot more than we can reasonably expect, but just for arguments' sake.

Then you've got the equivalent of 2.15 billion people puffing 26 tons a year.

So your conclusion is bogus. "Just a little" progress in the U.S. will definitely not erase the problem. Won't even come close.

 

[Ammar]

The link to the article I was referring to.

Didn't you mention that the theory in question was peer reviewed? This is only some testimony - which in addition to not being peer-reviewed is probably simplified for the Senate.

I am interested to see if the debate in the mainstream will be about the science, or about the person.

You are right that some of the criticism is against the person and not the work. Nevertheless there is some reason for this. The whole things went like this :

1) Journals wants to sponsor serious discussion with those who do not belief in GW (caused by man)
2) So they invite people, including Mr. Viscount to write a paper (not peer-reviewed)
3) He does so and they publish it after some minor editorial corrections
4) The "No human-caused GW-side" declares total victory :
"Scientific Proof in Journal that there is no GW" and even claimed that the whole APS had switched sides.

That's underhanded and you can't blame people to be upset about tactics like that. In this aspect it's also alot like the Creationism/Evolution thing. You give those people a hand and they run off with your arm, take quotes out of context and generally misrepresent the state of the discussion.

This being said I have no idea what background you have on science, but it has become so specialized that it's really hard for someone who doesn't work in that particular area to just read the relevant papers published each month.

So while he still *might* have a point you really have to ask yourself whether you yourself are biased. How many peer-reviewed articles did you read which argued for a global warming caused by man? If you have any specific scepticism (like measuring how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by burning fossil fuels) have you done any research on the methods the scientists use?

Look, I at least am happy to discuss any specific point but one has to narrow it down a little. People like skadistic never really answering to criticism and just raising new unrelated points while crying "Nah,nah, you are sooo stupid" don't really help the discussion as I hope you are able to admit. It's also similar to the discussion tactics of creationists. So if you want pick out one article and let's discuss it in detail.

 

[BasketCase]

What the heck, I'm gonna go for another hat trick.

As you well know, this is simply wrong. Theoretically, I could dig up photographs from 10 years ago, take a photograph today, and these would show a decline quite clearly. Three trees are gone, and the grassy area has the same size, as do the flower beds. Ergo: whatever minimal gain the small plants would show is more than offset by the loss of three entire tall trees.......

If you can't prove it, I have no reason to believe it. C'mon. Don't boast it, post it.

Edit: Damn. Ammar cut in on me. No three-in-a-row for moi.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And it's also known that the world's oxygen content is not going down (it's lower in cities ONLY, Simon--the worldwide average is not changing). Don't believe me--look it up on the web.

If you can't prove it, I have no reason to believe it. C'mon. Don't boast it, post it.

I agree with your last post.

 

[Simple Simon]

Side note (this is one of those "and another thing" kinda dealies):

"Hey BasketCase, tell us where all that extra plant mass is." Why should I? I don't have to point to it to know that it's there.

It's called an "existence proof". Such a proof doesn't tell you the how, where, or why, but it does prove that something exists.

Side note: seems BasketCase CAN'T say where that plant matter is.

It is called 'proof of existence', what I am asking for: show me that it is there, if you say it is there! Significant additional plant matter should be easy to see, after all we are talking green stuff in huge amounts. It is not like I am asking you to prove a 0.1% increase in the abundance of some oderless, invisible gas. No, I am asking where those billions of tons of additional plants are supposed to be, in the form of forests, or additonal plankton, or whatever.

You are basically claiming that there is the famous giant invisible radioactive monkey, and I simply would like to have proof - in case of the monkey, you could tell me to get a geiger counter. So where can I find that biomass?

The rate at which oxygen is being consumed has gone up. That much is known fact. Six and a half billion humans, lots of cars and factories. And it's also known that the world's oxygen content is not going down (it's lower in cities ONLY, Simon--the worldwide average is not changing).

Now you claim something impossible - if it is down in cities, and unchanged outside cities, then the average MUST have changed. If, however, it is not changing at all, then it can't be down in cities, or must be up outside cities. Which now?

Don't believe me--look it up on the web.

Since the world's plants are where we get all our oxygen, one of two things must be happening. Either worldwide plant biomass is increasing, or the same plants are producing oxygen at a faster rate. Most likely it's both.

And both cases would lead to massively more plant matter, and where is that???????

See? I don't have to point to the extra plants. They are out there somewhere. That is FACT.

No, actually you have to point to them, simply because your logic above is seriously flawed (as I just showed).

Basically, what it boils down to is that you prefer twisted half-baked 'logic' to facts - a state of mind not uncommon in both creationists and GW deniers. How about we DO look at facts? Why is that so bad?

 

[bigfatron]

The second one is controlled almost entirely by the first one.

Clearly not - otherwise the averaage American wouldn't be producing 20 times the pollution of the average African - can you understand this?

Now you're getting it. And that leads to this: the fewer people living on the planet, the more pollution each person can emit before the planet starts to malfunction.

Equally, the less people emit the more people you can safely support on the planet - hmm, eliminating people or reducing pollution, which one is the humane approach and which the fascist one?

And in return, you (and your kids) produce a lot more than your fair share. As Westerners, you and I produce things much more efficiently.

How about you get back to me once you've taken that into account. Till then--scram.

This is relevant how?

First you ignore the fact that we have cheerfully exported many of our most polluting industries to developing countries because we don't like the mess, as whereas they are preapare to tolerate it. Does shovelling your sh1t over the neighbours fence then complaining about the smell sound like hypocrisy to you?

Second being an efficient GDP generator does not give a free pass to be massively wasteful consumers of energy in other aspects of our existence - you ignore the fact that, despite having less heavy polluting industry around westerners still generate far more pollution. In fact your comment illustrates that we are generally heavy personal polluters, which gives us a direct and personal responsibility for the damage caused.

Wrong. If the first one fails to happen, we'll have 300 million Americans emitting 26 tons of CO2 each.

If the second one fails to happen, we will have TWO BILLION people emitting 26 tons each.

Your maths is based on a faulty assumption - most developed countries get by fine on 11-12 tons per annum, it's just you guys (plus Aus and Canada) that can't survive without 25 tons plus. If you think the rest of the world wants shopping malls, SUVs and the yankee dream then you are nuts....

The more salient point is that what you present is a false diochotomy - it is not either/or, we need BOTH.

That screaming noise you all just heard is BFR getting his ass kicked.

See ya.

You do realise that the only reason you are claiming to have won the debate (which is a pretty arrogant thing to do btw) is because you don't understand it?

BFR

 

[Ammar]

It's called an "existence proof". Such a proof doesn't tell you the how, where, or why, but it does prove that something exists.

Yes, and it works only in mathematics. Natural science doesn't ever proves anything - they deal with falsfiable theories instead.

Since the world's plants are where we get all our oxygen, one of two things must be happening. Either worldwide plant biomass is increasing, or the same plants are producing oxygen at a faster rate. Most likely it's both.

See? I don't have to point to the extra plants. They are out there somewhere. That is FACT.

How do you get from most likely to FACT? Your proof is sorely lacking. Even the most likely seems just you fumbling around. Why is it most likely?

Even more to the point you are (as usual) quite wrong.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5876/655
http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/atoxfall.htm

It's just not a great deal - since the change is relatively (in the sense of ratio now/then) small.

 

[bigfatron]

If China catches up to America's level of development, each Chinese person will produce at least as much CO2 as each American person. That is unassailable fact. China has three times as many people as the U.S.; that is also unassailable fact.

The conclusion is inescapable, and anybody who tries to argue it is either dishonest, or a moron. Third World development MUST be addressed, or this planet is going to cook like a steak on a barbecue grill. The continued refusal of the environmental lobby to deal with this aspect of the problem is beyond stupid.

Nope - you just don't get it do you - economic wealth and greenhouse emissions are loosely, not linearly correlated. The UK is almost as rich as the US but produces less than half the CO2 per head. France's emissions are even lower.

Economic development is only directly proportionate to pollution if your economy is energy profligate to an enormous extent. This is something India and China are unlikely to be able to be even if they wanted to because there will not be enough carbon-based energy to allow them to do so.

In summary, people who disagree with you may not be dishonest or moronoic, they may just grasp some subtleties that you are too stupid to get...

BFR

 

[BasketCase]

It is called 'proof of existence', what I am asking for: show me that it is there

I already did.

Significant additional plant matter should be easy to see

It's not. How many pounds of grass, total, are growing on all the lawns on your street right now?

See? You don't know.

Then there are microscopic ocean plants. These are the planet's number one source of oxygen--BUT THEY ARE INVISIBLE.

And BasketCase scores a three pointer.

Now you claim something impossible - if it is down in cities, and unchanged outside cities, then the average MUST have changed. If, however, it is not changing at all, then it can't be down in cities, or must be up outside cities. Which now?

If oxygen is down in cities but unchanged worldwide, that leaves only one possibility--the last one. Oxygen content must be up outside cities.

I don't have to point to where that is happening. It is definitely happening somewhere. That is FACT.

No, actually you have to point to them

No, I do not. I already proved the extra plants exist. Your claim that my logic was seriously flawed, was seriously flawed.

 

[BasketCase]

Nope - you just don't get it do you - economic wealth and greenhouse emissions are loosely, not linearly correlated.

So you admit I'm right. Thank you.

 

[Simple Simon]

I already did.

nope.

It's not. How many pounds of grass, total, are growing on all the lawns on your street right now?

See? You don't know.

You should see that people are not as stupid as you think they are. It is not necessary to weigh the stuff! If the grass grew significantly denser than 10 years ago, I'd see that. It doesn't. If it grew faster, I'd have to mow it more often. I don't. If it was heavier (thicker blades, e.g.), it would change in appearance. It didn't.

ergo: no significant additional grass mass.


WHERE IS THAT MYSTERY MASS??????

Then there are microscopic ocean plants. These are the planet's number one source of oxygen--BUT THEY ARE INVISIBLE.

False - go get yourself a microscope. Also, if the amount of plankton was significantly higher, the various ocean research programs WOULD have picked up on it. What in fact happens is that jellyfish are on the rise, but not phytoplankton. Or can you show that it is?????

And BasketCase scores a three pointer.

This is not only wrong, it is also utterly childish and makes you look pretty dumb. Why do you have to include a ridiculous line like this in every post? Is it some sort of trolling? Or simply spam?

If oxygen is down in cities but unchanged worldwide, that leaves only one possibility--the last one. Oxygen content must be up outside cities.

but earlier you said the opposite - also, could you bring some proof?

I don't have to point to where that is happening.

FALSE - you make an absurd claim, you back it up.

It is definitely happening somewhere. That is FACT.

Waving your hands and daying 'God did it', hu?

No, I do not. I already proved the extra plants exist.

Erh, nope. You made probably false starting assumptions, then built an unlikely train of conclusion onto them. That's not proof.

in contrast, I can prove that plant matter is on the DECLINE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

since rain forests give the higherst amount of plant biomass / area, and since forests get replaces by less dense ecosystems, and since new forests are NOT cropping up elsewhere, the total biomass of plants is going down. unless phytoplankton is growing, but as I said nobody has found the tiniest clue that it does.

pwned!

 

[bigfatron]

So you admit I'm right. Thank you.

Now you're being deliberately annoying - no-one can be that stupid...

If someone points out the flaw in your argument the one thing you can be confident they are not doing is 'admitting you are right!

 

[BasketCase]

You should see that people are not as stupid as you think they are. It is not necessary to weigh the stuff!

Yes it is. You have to measure plant mass or you don't know how much you have.

How often you mow your lawn proves nothing. When I was a kid, I did several experiments with bean sprouts for science class. Know what I discovered? The healthiest bean plants, that received the most sunlight, were the SHORTEST. They were less than six inches tall, deep green, with leaves everywhere, and they were growing SIDEWAYS rather than up--they were extending stalks to the sides to get even more of that delicious sunlight.

Whereas the bean plants that didn't get enough light grew two feet tall in an attempt to find some sunlight. The tallest plants had the LOWEST biomass (yes, I did weigh them all).


It's not enough to just look at your back yard. And, there's a second possibility you have completely ignored--

It's possible the Earth's remaining plants (i.e. all of them, everywhere) are producing oxygen faster. Prove this wrong.

 

[BasketCase]

Now you're being deliberately annoying

You said it yourself: economic wealth and greenhouse emissions are loosely correlated.