Global warming and environmental catastrophe: science or myth?

[BasketCase]

A quick link on the side about asteroid impacts. Not strictly related to global warming, but I find it fascinating--evidently there have been at least TWO mass extinctions resulting from asteroids.....

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/impact/news_detail.cfm?ID=142

Note the section that says 50 percent of species extant on earth survived the KT incident. Plenty of room in that 50 percent for mice (or creatures larger than mice....) but for all I know that 50% referred to germs.

In any case, the alleged impact 251 million years ago was even worse--but the biosphere reassembled itself after that, too.

 

[carlosMM]

You're the one who doesn't understand anything in here.


Look down. See if the Earth is there or not. Proof complete.

oh idiocy - that's proof of existence of earth, but in no way prove that earth must necessarily be self-stabilizing!

Dynamically unstable systems always collapse the minute they get nudged out of balance by the tiniest bit.

untrue - they collapse after SOME TIME. Which may be very short, but wwho's to define what's short?

I'd call a K/T boundary sized event 'sudden' if it happenes in a few thousands of years.

Humans (and indeed most of the biosphere) has survived many environmental changes much more drastic than the changes we're (allegedly) imposing now.

especially humans haven't even been round, as you pointed out, during the last few major climate changes.

Life survived multiple Ice Ages. Life even survived a direct asteroid impact (though with considerable damage). The system attempts to repair itself whenever it is shoved out of balance. That's what "stable" means.

first of all, you again use an absurd definition. Your drive is, it seems: if any from of life survives, GW isn't bad at all.



second, you have still not in any way proven thatg there is any active mechanism that attempts to stabilize anything. Please introduce us to that 'earth person' who does that.

The seasonal plus and minus 40 degrees we see is caused by this or that area of the Earth getting less solar radiation. Less sunlight cools the planet in a matter of WEEKS. The environment responds to the change immediately.

so?

When U.S. airlines around New York were completely grounded after 9/11, a measurable response was detected in the weather. Not exactly the response I expected--rather than becoming cooler, the daytime actually got a degree WARMER, while the nights became colder. Still, the effect occurred within a day or two.

so?

When Saddam torched 700 Kuwaiti oil wells and turned the sky black, the temperature at ground level dropped 10 to 15 degrees. Within DAYS.

so?

Carbon dioxide absorbs sunlight and converts it to heat. Its global warming effect comes directly from solar radiation. This effect is immediate.

so?


sadly, you fail to take anything beyond your immediate attention span into account. No feedback mechanisms, no athmospheric convection, nothing.

Yet, whenever I challenge anybody to explain how temperature has suddenly failed to keep up with carbon dioxide levels, I get a weak cop-out: "Oh, that's due to other factors".

Yes, as these people are, as opposed to you, capable of understanding that there's SEVERAL factors.
If someone pumps a load of bird shot into you from 1 foot distance there's several reasons why you will die - even if ONE of the wounds alone is not fatal - even if all of them alone aren't.

#1: If that's true, then the global warming ITSELF could be due to "other factors" besides humans.

sadly, the possible other factors have been shown to have hardly any influence.

#2: Why did these "other factors" mysteriously fail to affect the seasons or the 9/11 airline shutdown or the sooty clouds over Kuwait? That gives it all away--this "other factors" counter-argument is bullpuckey.

they do influence seasons - it is just that what you pretend to be un-influenced (what you are used to) is already influenced.
they did influence things after 9/11 - as they always do. But please, how was methane levels and cloud cover CHANGED after 9/11?

A while back, the theory was posed that the universe was expanding (rather than static, as had been previously believed before then).

There was a particular crackpot scientist who refused to believe it. This crackpot was so certain the universe had to be static that he made up a new expansive force that he said would exactly balance gravity. Note what this crackpot did: he decided first what conclusion he WANTED to reach, then he made up a theory that would allow him to believe that conclusion. This isn't science. It's a really bad screw-up is what it is.

Would you like to know the name of this crackpot scientist?

Spoiler :

ALBERT EINSTEIN

If a mind that brilliant can commit such a logical foul, a bunch of lazy Internet-surfing hacks like us sure can.

so why do you constantly claim that all the scientists are wrong and you are right?

So don't be so certain you know what you think you know. Rumsfeld nailed it just right: there are some things we don't know we don't know. Me, I know that we don't know them.

arrogance comes before the fall, BasketCase!

 

[carlosMM]

In any case, the alleged impact 251 million years ago was even worse--but the biosphere reassembled itself after that, too.

see, you still don't get it: 'before' and 'after' have only in common that there's life on earth - aside from that there's practically nothing that's the same.


so if GW does that today (no humans, hardly any mammals left, no birds, 80% of fish gone, 70% of plants gone) - would you call that a 'self-stabilized system'?

 

[BasketCase]

If GW doesn't do that EVER--will you send me an apology by PM? You already owe me 47.

Once again, you're the one who doesn't get it. The planet was ENTIRELY the same after BOTH asteroid impacts. The living things on it were different, but they weren't even my point when I brought up asteroids. The point is that the planet itself returns to the same basic environmental conditions it had before. When it gets too hot, the planet takes action to cool itself back down.

so?

so?

so?

so?

Come back to me when you've got something more substantial than this.

Edit: So, my point is this: I just gave a few examples of global temperature changes that were (probably) caused by human beings. These changes occurred over entire nations in a matter of days. So the theory can be posed that other such atmospheric changes, such as that caused by carbon dioxide, should occur in a matter of days. The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have jumped enormously in the last century--why have we not seen a corresponding increase in temperature? And, why has that factor (if it even exists) failed to influence other environmental changes such as the cloud of soot that covered Kuwait while 700 oil wells were on fire?

Human-caused global warming might be happening, or it might not, and I see no conclusive evidence that it is. That's my opinion after studying everything about the subject that I can find, and I'm sticking to it until somebody with some scientific acumen speaks up.

 

[carlosMM]

Once again, you're the one who doesn't get it. The planet was ENTIRELY the same after BOTH asteroid impacts. The living things on it were different, but they weren't even my point when I brought up asteroids. The point is that the planet itself returns to the same basic environmental conditions it had before. When it gets too hot, the planet takes action to cool itself back down.

Basket Case, it seems you can't even bother to think about the thread topic when you post - a climate change that wipes out all ecosystems and replaces them with massively dfiferent one is exactly the kind of catasrophe you were initially talking about..

'action'?


you still haven't shown me the 'actor' - who's actively doing something????

It is ONLY the laws of physics, and by chance earth stayed in the limits for life. by pure chance.

Edit: So, my point is this: I just gave a few examples of global temperature changes that were (probably) caused by human beings. These changes occurred over entire nations in a matter of days. So the theory can be posed that other such atmospheric changes, such as that caused by carbon dioxide, should occur in a matter of days.

wrong - as I showed there's many factors, and because changing one factor a tiny bit gives a tiny jig doesn'Ät mean the entire system has to keel over backwards just becasue something else is changed. Your understanding is a bit limited...

The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have jumped enormously in the last century--why have we not seen a corresponding increase in temperature?

because climate is a multi-factor thingy.

And, why has that factor (if it even exists) failed to influence other environmental changes such as the cloud of soot that covered Kuwait while 700 oil wells were on fire?[/B]how can you say it hasn't?????????

Human-caused global warming might be happening, or it might not, and I see no conclusive evidence that it is. That's my opinion after studying everything about the subject that I can find, and I'm sticking to it until somebody with some scientific acumen speaks up.

You're intentionally blind. And you are insulting gothmog. He has more scientific 'acmuen' in his little toe than anyone needs to see GW by man is real and bad.

 

[BasketCase]

Basket Case, it seems you can't even bother to think about the thread topic when you post - a climate change that wipes out all ecosystems and replaces them with massively dfiferent one is exactly the kind of catasrophe you were initially talking about.

No it wasn't. The only catastrophe around here is you twisting my words around.

The asteroid impact (or impacts) wiped out PARTS of the ecosystem. Some species survived both impacts, which means the asteroid's effect cannot have been as extremely radical as you imply.

The only reason the asteroids did as much damage as they did is because their effect was massive and immediate.

Global warming is not. It's very gradual, and the planet has plenty of time to react. Global warming CAN'T destroy anything on the planet if the planet counterbalances to prevent it from overheating in the first place.

The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have jumped enormously in the last century--why have we not seen a corresponding increase in temperature?

because climate is a multi-factor thingy.

Then why have so many other human-caused environmental changes been so immediately visible? How did your alleged multi-factor thingy suddenly disappear for those other cases?

You're intentionally blind. And you are insulting gothmog. He has more scientific 'acmuen' in his little toe than anyone needs to see GW by man is real and bad.

I respect Gothmog. He uses actual science in his posts. He has actual substance in his posts.

You don't.

 

[carlosMM]

BasketCase - I refuse to answer any more than your first point

The asteroid impact (or impacts) wiped out PARTS of the ecosystem. Some species survived both impacts, which means the asteroid's effect cannot have been as extremely radical as you imply.

this shows you don't even know what an ecosystem is. Thus, all your blabbering must be dismissed as in- and semi-informed yaddayadda - who do you think will take your posts seriously? I for one can't.

And your sudden 'respect' for gothmog is a lie - you always dismissed his posts as 'false' - now they are 'real science'????

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The asteroid impact (or impacts) wiped out PARTS of the ecosystem. Some species survived both impacts, which means the asteroid's effect cannot have been as extremely radical as you imply.

Ignorance on parade. At least a third of Europe's population survived the Black Plague, therefore its effects cannot have been "as extremely radical" as historians imply. Only "PARTS" of European society were wiped out, after all.

 

[BasketCase]

And your sudden 'respect' for gothmog is a lie - you always dismissed his posts as 'false'

Liar.

My opinion has always been that it's unknown whether global warming is caused by humans. Most of the time, I framed my disagreements with other CFC'ers like this: "You might be wrong, and here's why I think you might be wrong".

There are a few things on which I think Goth is, in fact, flat-out wrong (though I've long since forgotten which ones). But I do not think he's a liar. He simply looked at the evidence on the subject and came to a different conclusion than I did.

 

[BasketCase]

Ignorance on parade. At least a third of Europe's population survived the Black Plague, therefore its effects cannot have been "as extremely radical" as historians imply. Only "PARTS" of European society were wiped out, after all.

A few posts back, somebody claimed that Earth's biosphere was competely different after The Asteroid.

If it was, then nothing would have survived the impact. The fact is, that something like half of all species on the planet DID survive. The biosphere remained the same. Oxygen atmosphere. Temperature and atmospheric pressure remained the same. Plants and mammals remained in the system.

The conclusion, once again: when shoved out of balance, Earth restored itself to the SAME parameters it had before. The same chemical-temperature-pressure parameters. The same types of life forms. In fact, many of the exact same life forms as before the impact. Self-stabilizing system.

 

[BasketCase]

BasketCase - I refuse to answer any more than your first point

Probably because you can't.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The conclusion, once again: when shoved out of balance, Earth restored itself to the SAME parameters it had before. The same chemical-temperature-pressure parameters. The same types of life forms. In fact, many of the exact same life forms as before the impact. Self-stabilizing system.

:lol No, that's wrong by definition. There is no goal state in an ecological system. If you're talking in GEOLOGICAL terms (which no one else here is) then yeah, I would be surprised if an asteroid changed the pressure of Earth's atmosphere or its makeup of elements. As the saying goes, "No ____, Sherlock."

But if you're talking ECOLOGY then bs, as I said.

 

[BasketCase]

I was talking temperature more than anything else.

The asteroid caused a strong and immediate cooling effect. The planet acted to undo it.

And, by the way, there IS a goal state for ecological systems: life. And as much of it as possible. Next time you're coming home from work, take a look at that weed that squeezed its way up through a crack in your front sidewalk, and reflect on the fact that living things are going to shoehorn their way in anywhere they can get a grip.

 

[carlosMM]

BasketCase: 'the planet acted' - please show us how the planet ACTIVELY DID something (you're talking nonsense here, that's why you avoid my persistant request that you back this point up).

 

[BasketCase]

Cause and effect. The space around Earth is at absolute zero. And without the correct balance of gases in the atmosphere (or with too much dust in the air after, say, a great big rock hits the surface), the planet would be too cold to support life.

Unless something acts to warm the planet up, it freezes. Therefore some process, somewhere, must actively be working to keep the planet warm. Chance has nothing to do with it; once the first self-reproducing proteins evolved, random chance was removed from the equation. A fire doesn't keep burning "by pure chance". The heat it produces ignites nearby fuel, and the fire is self-sustaining as long as there's fuel around for it to consume.

 

[carlosMM]

Cause and effect. The space around Earth is at absolute zero. And without the correct balance of gases in the atmosphere (or with too much dust in the air after, say, a great big rock hits the surface), the planet would be too cold to support life.

indeed - glad you are able to see that or too hot, if you can fathom that.

Unless something acts to warm the planet up, it freezes. Therefore some process, somewhere, must actively be working to keep the planet warm. Chance has nothing to do with it; once the first self-reproducing proteins evolved, random chance was removed from the equation. A fire doesn't keep burning "by pure chance". The heat it produces ignites nearby fuel, and the fire is self-sustaining as long as there's fuel around for it to consume.

and that's utter nonsense - a fire burn until it runs out of stuff to burn or gets actively or by chance cooled down or deprived of oxygen. Please do show where the 'active' heating process you describe has any purpose to it. You imply a somehow 'conscious' planet - all you descirbe here is laws of physics and chance. Where is the 'acting'?????

 

[BasketCase]

indeed - glad you are able to see that or too hot, if you can fathom that.

The planet acts to prevent the planet from getting too hot, as well. The forces that warm the planet--carbon dioxide, for example--are not constant. Carbon dioxide levels fluctuate for various reasons. Unless there were processes acting to counterbalance, a single spike in carbon dioxide levels would have produced a runaway, and the planet would be an oven forever. The fact that this hasn't happened for billions of years proves that such processes (that counterbalance carbon dioxide warming) do exist.

all you descirbe here is laws of physics and chance. Where is the 'acting'?????

The acting IS in the laws of physics. The planet isn't conscious--but it is active. Chemistry, weather, ocean currents, etc etc--it's all a very busy system.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Carbon dioxide levels fluctuate for various reasons. Unless there were processes acting to counterbalance, a single spike in carbon dioxide levels would have produced a runaway, and the planet would be an oven forever. The fact that this hasn't happened for billions of years proves that such processes (that counterbalance carbon dioxide warming) do exist.

Sure, but the contextual purpose of those processes wasn't to slow the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. That was a side effect of a large potential-prey population (phytoplankton) causing the evolution of predators, protozoa. And again on larger scales.

In other words you are inferring a purpose where none exists, and thus an action where the reality is a side effect.

Unless something acts to warm the planet up, it freezes. Therefore some process, somewhere, must actively be working to keep the planet warm.

Yeah, it's called the Sun. In other words, another fact you gloss over is that the Earth is not a contained system.

 

[carlosMM]

The planet acts to prevent the planet from getting too hot, as well. The forces that warm the planet--carbon dioxide, for example--are not constant. Carbon dioxide levels fluctuate for various reasons. Unless there were processes acting to counterbalance, a single spike in carbon dioxide levels would have produced a runaway, and the planet would be an oven forever. The fact that this hasn't happened for billions of years proves that such processes (that counterbalance carbon dioxide warming) do exist.

The acting IS in the laws of physics. The planet isn't conscious--but it is active. Chemistry, weather, ocean currents, etc etc--it's all a very busy system.

what a bull definition of 'acting' First, you insinuate 'active' conter'acting' in the 'I'll do what I can to keep the sysstem stable' sense, now you say it's physics

sorry, but you sound like a social worker

 

[BasketCase]

That's just you twisting my words around again. I didn't insinuate anything. Activity doesn't require consciousness. There's no God or Gaia consciousness working here (well, I can't prove that, but I don't believe in either of those).