Global Warming - Page 2

stevehull · 02-12-13, 08:27 AM

Xringer,

Arctic ice does indeed come and go - that is the truth, but the thinning of the Arctic ice cap is not a fallacy.

Guys, if you want to promote fallacies then believe that you can make energy for your car from water, that putting a magnet on your fuel line will increase your car milage by 25% and that a 1 kW wind turbine will supply all your home energy needs.

We know, because we are here, of the laws of physics, engineering and of rational thought. Let's not discard our brains as we think of other arenas.

We are all experiencing the "law of the commons", you may have opinions, but opinions are not facts.

respectfully,

Steve

Xringer · 02-12-13, 09:29 AM

Putting a magnet on my fuel line worked! It's getting over 60 MPG now!!

Of course, it's a very small car..

Exeric · 02-12-13, 04:04 PM

My big logical question is, why did the dead sea scrolls die 2000 years ago? And how did they get all that writing on them before they died? I think they may have died from natural climate change, poor dears.

ecomodded · 02-12-13, 08:10 PM

The planet is increasing its co2 right on schedule as the Graphs I posted denote and you want to believe we did it in the last 50 years ? 100 years 200 years ? Ridiculous.
I do not believe it one iota , You do, who is being fooled ? You. Its obvious.

Exeric · 02-13-13, 12:26 AM

Check out this site for current percentages of CO2:

http://co2now.org/images/stories/dat...-noaa-esrl.pdf

Your high percentage of approx .3 is inaccurate. It is now almost .4 and is far, far beyond even the highest previous record for CO2 from the past 600,000 years. With the developing nations of China and India becoming developed nations it will only get worse this century unless something is done.

You can put your head in the sand and find an unreliable website to make you feel better, or you can see it as it really is even though it won't make you happy. That is the only way course changes ever happen.

stevehull · 02-13-13, 07:15 AM

Here are some observations on "not believing". For many years I taught at a medical school and in particular respiratory physiology.

Every year (and I mean EVERY year), I would talk about the dangers of first and second hand smoke, lung pathophysiology, COPD and the aweful way it is to die

.

Invariably, a medical student would chime up and boldly assert the following (a belief statement): my grandfather is 88 years old, has smoked two packs of cigarettes a day since WWII and he is still alive. If smoking is so bad, then why is he alive?"

The other medical students would be hooting as they love to tweak a professor and have very high opinions of their opinions

.

I would listen, act like I was thinking (having heard the question every year) and say the following:

Your belief statement is true and is valid as it is first hand information not to be doubted. Your hypothesis is that smoking does not kill - is that right?"

The student would squirm, but I would continue . . .

"Let's do an experiment to address a similar question. I assert (hypothesis, belief statement) that jumping off a ten story building kills. So let's test this hypothesis and have this class of 150 jump off this ten story building.

After the experiment, I see one or two of you loudly proclaiming that indeed you CAN live after jumping off a ten story building - your leg is broken, but you are alive. You assert that the hypothesis is DEAD because you are alive!"

But the other 149 - 149 have no voice (literally) and cannot counter you - they are all dead.

The exception to the rule - is just that, an exception. It does not invalidate biology, the laws of physics, whatever.

Smoking kills and so does second hand smoke. I think (hope?) we all agree on that. But ~ 20 years ago, there was a panel of tobacco executives in FRONT of Congress that said no, smoking does not kill and literally used the medical student arguement (above) as "evidence".

Climate change today is in the same realm where well meaning people are trying to find out truth and sometimes simple essays seem logical when they deny links between CO2 and climate change.

Let's not jump off buildings in trying to "prove" a point

.

Respectfully,

Steve

AC_Hacker · 02-13-13, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevehull

...Climate change today is in the same realm where well meaning people are trying to find out truth and sometimes simple essays seem logical when they deny links between CO2 and climate change...

You failed to mention that the very techniques of dis-information that were used during the 'tobacco wars' are being used to deny the effects of climate change... even the same lobbying groups are being used.

But on a gentler note, this discussion hinges on what I have come to understand as "the durability of ignorance." It's a bit like religion, but without the any of the benefits.

I heard a very interesting statistic the other day... 55% of scientists self-identify as Democrats, while only about 6% self-identify as Republicans.

...what does that tell you?

-AC

ecomodded · 02-13-13, 12:05 PM

ABSTRACT

Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.

INTRODUCTION

In the last 20 years, public interest in climate phenomena has grown, especially since the UN-IPCC began its campaign warning of catastrophic climate changes ahead. At Biology Cabinet, we maintain that the changes that we have observed since 1985 have been natural and that human beings cannot delay or stop the advance of these changes, but can only adapt to them. In addition, we have shown that the changes that we observe at present are the result of natural cycles which have occurred many times before.

GRAPH ON CARBON DIOXIDE DURING GEOLOGICAL ERAS

In prehistoric times, during the Permian, in the Palaeozoic Era, for example, the concentration of Carbon Dioxide dropped below 210 ppmV. Throughout the Permian Period plant and animal species diverged and diversified as never before. Dinosaurs prospered and predominated over all the other orders of vertebrates. Coniferous plants first appeared in the Permian. The change of atmospheric temperature at the time of the Permian was around 10 °C. By comparison, the current change of global temperature is only 0.52 °C while the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 385 ppmV. If the global temperature is dependent on CO2, then the change of temperature at present would be around 10 °C or higher, as it was during the Permian Period.

From the early Triassic to the middle Cretaceous, the concentration of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was similar to its current density. From the late cretaceous to the early Miocene, the concentration climbed above 210 ppmV. During the Holocene period, the concentration has oscillated from 210 ppmV to 385 ppmV.

It is possible that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will increase normally in the course of the next 50 million years to 1050 ppmV or 2500 ppmV.

We have also observed that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases several centuries after glaciations. Perhaps this is due to the fact that most plants perish at sub-zero temperatures, and plants are organisms that capture Carbon Dioxide from their surroundings to make food.

Scientists have also observed that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases during periods of warming. However, an increase in temperature always precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, which generally occurs decades or centuries after any change of temperature. We have not observed an increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide to have preceded a period of warming. This latter phenomenon occurs because when oceans absorb more heat from an increase in the amount of direct solar irradiance incident upon the Earth's surface, they release more Carbon Dioxide molecules into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, most drastic increases in CO2 concentration occur decades or centuries after the oceans have warmed up. For example, the present increase of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was caused by an extraordinary increase in solar activity in 1998 which warmed up the El Niño South Atlantic Oceanic Oscillation.

These increases in concentration of atmospheric CO2 offer optimal conditions for the development and evolution of living beings on Earth. Human beings should adapt to these natural changes by means of science and technology.

Carbon Dioxide Through the Geological Eras

Hmm me thinks you guys are misleading if not fanciful.

Exeric · 02-13-13, 12:58 PM

I thought you wanted to talk about your CO2 charts going back 600,000 years? In those charts all those previous peaks in CO2 stopped at 0.3. It is now at .392 and showing no signs of slowing its accelerating upward trajectory. Are you abandoning that argument? Are you admitting you were wrong by starting this new argument thread using different evidence? I refuse to engage with new arguments until I know where you stand on that.

Throwing new arguments at the wall without addressing old ones, while hoping the new ones stick, is not an intellectually honest way of investigating a subject.

ecomodded · 02-13-13, 05:56 PM

New arguments ? its all the same argument, I have presented you with facts.
For you to with what you want.

You can't unread what i presented to you. I hope you one day can use that information to get a clearer picture of the world we live in, and its changes.

Meaning your .392 is menial. That is the relation between my two posts.

Glad to have been able to help you.

Regards ecomodded.

02-12-13, 08:27 AM	#11
stevehull Steve Hull Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: hilly, tree covered Arcadia, OK USA Posts: 826 Thanks: 241 Thanked 165 Times in 123 Posts	Xringer, Arctic ice does indeed come and go - that is the truth, but the thinning of the Arctic ice cap is not a fallacy. Guys, if you want to promote fallacies then believe that you can make energy for your car from water, that putting a magnet on your fuel line will increase your car milage by 25% and that a 1 kW wind turbine will supply all your home energy needs. We know, because we are here, of the laws of physics, engineering and of rational thought. Let's not discard our brains as we think of other arenas. We are all experiencing the "law of the commons", you may have opinions, but opinions are not facts. respectfully, Steve __________________ consulting on geothermal heating/cooling & rational energy use since 1990

02-12-13, 09:29 AM	#12
Xringer Lex Parsimoniae Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Woburn, MA Posts: 4,918 Thanks: 114 Thanked 250 Times in 230 Posts	Putting a magnet on my fuel line worked! It's getting over 60 MPG now!! Of course, it's a very small car.. __________________ My hobby is installing & trying to repair mini-splits EPA 608 Type 1 Technician Certification ~ 5 lbs or less..

02-13-13, 07:15 AM	#16
stevehull Steve Hull Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: hilly, tree covered Arcadia, OK USA Posts: 826 Thanks: 241 Thanked 165 Times in 123 Posts	belief statements Here are some observations on "not believing". For many years I taught at a medical school and in particular respiratory physiology. Every year (and I mean EVERY year), I would talk about the dangers of first and second hand smoke, lung pathophysiology, COPD and the aweful way it is to die. Invariably, a medical student would chime up and boldly assert the following (a belief statement): my grandfather is 88 years old, has smoked two packs of cigarettes a day since WWII and he is still alive. If smoking is so bad, then why is he alive?" The other medical students would be hooting as they love to tweak a professor and have very high opinions of their opinions. I would listen, act like I was thinking (having heard the question every year) and say the following: Your belief statement is true and is valid as it is first hand information not to be doubted. Your hypothesis is that smoking does not kill - is that right?" The student would squirm, but I would continue . . . "Let's do an experiment to address a similar question. I assert (hypothesis, belief statement) that jumping off a ten story building kills. So let's test this hypothesis and have this class of 150 jump off this ten story building. After the experiment, I see one or two of you loudly proclaiming that indeed you CAN live after jumping off a ten story building - your leg is broken, but you are alive. You assert that the hypothesis is DEAD because you are alive!" But the other 149 - 149 have no voice (literally) and cannot counter you - they are all dead. The exception to the rule - is just that, an exception. It does not invalidate biology, the laws of physics, whatever. Smoking kills and so does second hand smoke. I think (hope?) we all agree on that. But ~ 20 years ago, there was a panel of tobacco executives in FRONT of Congress that said no, smoking does not kill and literally used the medical student arguement (above) as "evidence". Climate change today is in the same realm where well meaning people are trying to find out truth and sometimes simple essays seem logical when they deny links between CO2 and climate change. Let's not jump off buildings in trying to "prove" a point. Respectfully, Steve __________________ consulting on geothermal heating/cooling & rational energy use since 1990 Last edited by stevehull; 02-13-13 at 10:54 AM..

02-13-13, 12:05 PM	#18
ecomodded Supreme EcoRenovator Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Vancouver Island,Canada. Posts: 1,037 Thanks: 116 Thanked 100 Times in 87 Posts	ABSTRACT Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand. INTRODUCTION In the last 20 years, public interest in climate phenomena has grown, especially since the UN-IPCC began its campaign warning of catastrophic climate changes ahead. At Biology Cabinet, we maintain that the changes that we have observed since 1985 have been natural and that human beings cannot delay or stop the advance of these changes, but can only adapt to them. In addition, we have shown that the changes that we observe at present are the result of natural cycles which have occurred many times before. GRAPH ON CARBON DIOXIDE DURING GEOLOGICAL ERAS In prehistoric times, during the Permian, in the Palaeozoic Era, for example, the concentration of Carbon Dioxide dropped below 210 ppmV. Throughout the Permian Period plant and animal species diverged and diversified as never before. Dinosaurs prospered and predominated over all the other orders of vertebrates. Coniferous plants first appeared in the Permian. The change of atmospheric temperature at the time of the Permian was around 10 °C. By comparison, the current change of global temperature is only 0.52 °C while the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 385 ppmV. If the global temperature is dependent on CO2, then the change of temperature at present would be around 10 °C or higher, as it was during the Permian Period. From the early Triassic to the middle Cretaceous, the concentration of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was similar to its current density. From the late cretaceous to the early Miocene, the concentration climbed above 210 ppmV. During the Holocene period, the concentration has oscillated from 210 ppmV to 385 ppmV. It is possible that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will increase normally in the course of the next 50 million years to 1050 ppmV or 2500 ppmV. We have also observed that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases several centuries after glaciations. Perhaps this is due to the fact that most plants perish at sub-zero temperatures, and plants are organisms that capture Carbon Dioxide from their surroundings to make food. Scientists have also observed that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases during periods of warming. However, an increase in temperature always precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, which generally occurs decades or centuries after any change of temperature. We have not observed an increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide to have preceded a period of warming. This latter phenomenon occurs because when oceans absorb more heat from an increase in the amount of direct solar irradiance incident upon the Earth's surface, they release more Carbon Dioxide molecules into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, most drastic increases in CO2 concentration occur decades or centuries after the oceans have warmed up. For example, the present increase of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was caused by an extraordinary increase in solar activity in 1998 which warmed up the El Niño South Atlantic Oceanic Oscillation. These increases in concentration of atmospheric CO2 offer optimal conditions for the development and evolution of living beings on Earth. Human beings should adapt to these natural changes by means of science and technology. Carbon Dioxide Through the Geological Eras Hmm me thinks you guys are misleading if not fanciful. Attached Thumbnails

02-12-13, 04:04 PM	#13
Exeric Apprentice EcoRenovator Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: California Posts: 274 Thanks: 19 Thanked 37 Times in 28 Posts	My big logical question is, why did the dead sea scrolls die 2000 years ago? And how did they get all that writing on them before they died? I think they may have died from natural climate change, poor dears.

02-12-13, 08:10 PM	#14
ecomodded Supreme EcoRenovator Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Vancouver Island,Canada. Posts: 1,037 Thanks: 116 Thanked 100 Times in 87 Posts	The planet is increasing its co2 right on schedule as the Graphs I posted denote and you want to believe we did it in the last 50 years ? 100 years 200 years ? Ridiculous. I do not believe it one iota , You do, who is being fooled ? You. Its obvious.

02-13-13, 12:26 AM	#15
Exeric Apprentice EcoRenovator Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: California Posts: 274 Thanks: 19 Thanked 37 Times in 28 Posts	Check out this site for current percentages of CO2: http://co2now.org/images/stories/dat...-noaa-esrl.pdf Your high percentage of approx .3 is inaccurate. It is now almost .4 and is far, far beyond even the highest previous record for CO2 from the past 600,000 years. With the developing nations of China and India becoming developed nations it will only get worse this century unless something is done. You can put your head in the sand and find an unreliable website to make you feel better, or you can see it as it really is even though it won't make you happy. That is the only way course changes ever happen.

02-13-13, 12:58 PM	#19
Exeric Apprentice EcoRenovator Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: California Posts: 274 Thanks: 19 Thanked 37 Times in 28 Posts	I thought you wanted to talk about your CO2 charts going back 600,000 years? In those charts all those previous peaks in CO2 stopped at 0.3. It is now at .392 and showing no signs of slowing its accelerating upward trajectory. Are you abandoning that argument? Are you admitting you were wrong by starting this new argument thread using different evidence? I refuse to engage with new arguments until I know where you stand on that. Throwing new arguments at the wall without addressing old ones, while hoping the new ones stick, is not an intellectually honest way of investigating a subject.

02-13-13, 05:56 PM	#20
ecomodded Supreme EcoRenovator Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Vancouver Island,Canada. Posts: 1,037 Thanks: 116 Thanked 100 Times in 87 Posts	New arguments ? its all the same argument, I have presented you with facts. For you to with what you want. You can't unread what i presented to you. I hope you one day can use that information to get a clearer picture of the world we live in, and its changes. Meaning your .392 is menial. That is the relation between my two posts. Glad to have been able to help you. Regards ecomodded.