Real World Event Discussions

Mal4Prez nails the climate change debate...

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 04:17
VIEWED: 12057
PAGE 3 of 11

DREAMTROVE

Monday, October 3, 2011 1:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Consider the output of industrial co2, compared with the yearly intake and output of the planet. The co2 level is rising because of deforestation, even a cursory look at the math makes that obvious.

So after agreeing with Rappy, you just threw him under the bus with that paragraph. That *IS* man-assisted global warming, right there. Or do you think those forests are chopping themselves down?

That's probably my general political position anyway

We're wasting time on this, there are actual dangers, even environmental ones. I think Rap was trying to make the case that this argument has been discredited, which I think it has.

The danger is not that some small routine behavior of all humans is destroying the planet, but that massive impacts done by a handful of individuals can destroy massive parts of the planet.

There are lots of misdirected efforts, and TPTB are always trying to misdirect us more, giving us some shiny issue to fight over.

I get annoyed with this one because of the simple math. I'm probably not above using this to try to get people environmentally aware, but I don't want people who are already aware to waste their time on it. It's very much like the "threat of terrorism" or "war on drugs" sort of thing, it's just ignoring the real problem.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NIKI2

Monday, October 3, 2011 1:11 PM

Mal4, thankx everso, that was very illuminating. Nothing I didn't know, but put out there in terms I could understand. Did you enjoy the trip? What's Fairbanks like, and what did you see?

I'm not getting into this "debate" because it isn't one. Those who believe, believe; those who don't, don't. Nothing will change their minds, and I don't think any of us will live long enough to find out for certain. Aside from the fact that even if it were to happen in YOUR lifetime (I'm certain not in mine), those who disbelieve still wouldn't, they'd find another "reason". So it's not a debate for me and hasn't been for a long time.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the facts you've presented. Wish I could wander that display myself, looks fascinating.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

SIGNYM

Monday, October 3, 2011 1:21 PM

Quote:
Reminds me of how I question every day if there was a god.

You do? Seems kind of a waste of time.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 3, 2011 2:37 PM

Quote:
Nothing will change their minds, and I don't think any of us will live long enough to find out for certain.

First of all, it IS happening "in our lifetime". It's happening NOW. If you're not certain, it's because you're not looking.
Greenland Ice Cap Melting Faster Than Ever

Quote:
ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2009) — Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112141311.htm Now, for those who think that this is "normal" - after all, there was a Norse settlement on Greenland, right? .... the ice sheet has been a stable geological feature for over 100,000 years. There has not been a melt like this in all of human (homo sapiens sapiens') existence. The last time the ice sheet reached a minimum was about 400,000 years ago... before the Neandertals, when Homo erectus was being transformed into Homo heidelbergensis.
www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5883/1622.abstract

King crabs invade Antartica

Quote:
Giant king crabs are invading the waters off the Antarctic Peninsula, which are warming with climate change, say[s]... Craig Smith, a professor of oceanography... "For the last 14 million years or so, these kinds of crabs have been excluded from the Antarctic shelf waters because it's too cold for them," said Smith. "But on the Antarctic Peninsula, the water is warming very rapidly."

www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/09/07/science-king-crabs-antarct
ica.html

Again, to put this in perspective, the last time that king crabs emerged onto the ice shelves..14 MILLION years ago... hominds were emerging from australopithecans. We hadn't even gotten to "homo" yet. And that was a long time ago! So we are seeing more than historic changes, and even more than prehistoric changes, we are seeing changes on a geologic timescale.

The question isn't whether the earth's climate changes. It does. There have been many changes; some due vulcanism, some to large meteor strikes, some due to solar output, others due to orbital variation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycleshttp://en.wikipedia.or
g/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

But just because there are several different causes for climatic shifts doesn't mean we can't be one of them. That's like saying that since you could have been shot, stabbed, smothered or crushed, I couldn't possibly have poisoned you. Where is the logic in that? The presence of other causes doesn't negate other possibility of yet one more. If you REALLY want to find out what the cause is, you have to look at the evidence, in detail. Something that our more flamboyant flat-Earthers avoid like the plague.

And IF it is happening.... and the evidence is incontrovertible that it is... can we stop it? Can we at least adapt to it?

Sadly, we are doing neither.

1KIKI

Monday, October 3, 2011 2:50 PM

"... I don't think any of us will live long enough to find out for certain."

I think you're optimistic. We already are experiencing the results of global warming and I think we will be at the point of 'OMG our systems are crashing down around us' crisis in a couple of decades.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 3, 2011 3:30 PM

Interesting.

Mal4Prez, I think you and I read a similar study once about human agriculture and methane throwing off the natural ice-age cycle ten thousand years ago. The ten-thousand years ago thing was determined by the Milankovitch cycles.

The midge fly data suggests however that we are in a break period. Clearly there are more factors involved here than I initially thought. However, there might also be differences to be expected from using climate boring data from the north as compared to ice boring data from Antarctica, as land and ocean have different responses to cyclical temperature change, and the north pole has a lot of land around it (excepting the northern sea), while the south pole is surrounded by oceans (and has a continent with high albedo covered in ice).

RIONAEIRE

Monday, October 3, 2011 10:04 PM

There is no question that the climate is changing. The question is how much of it is man's fault? The secondary question is what is man doing to add to it if it is partially man's fault? If we are adding to it at all it is through deforestation, that's how I feel, I guess I agree with DT really. The earth does this stuff, whether we have any part in it or not. I think what we should focus on is correcting the stuff we know is our fault, deforestation and all the stuff that DT mentioned with bad mining techniques, nonsustainable practices etc. Whether we play a small role in climate change (if we play any role at all) doesn't seem as important as us cleaning up our act and taking care of the earth like we're supposed to.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 12:50 AM

Yes, the earth does change naturally. That has been quite clearly established, and was central to my posts. But all evidence I see points to how the natural cycles are now being messed with. No naysayer is addressing the rather obvious changes in CO2 and CH4 that just happened to occur when humans took over the scene, other than to say: but it just can't be!! Put your calculator where your mouth is, folks. Show some hard numbers, some real, peer-reviewed research that counters what's happening on the time scale of the current ice age cycles.

Six - this is not about conviction, it is about the evidence I have before me. When I see different evidence, I will draw a different conclusion. Got any evidence? Really. I'd be happy to shift my ideas about this.

DT - you post a graph that covers the scale of millions of years. Yes, there are extreme changes over such a time scale - duh! From molten early earth to snowball earth, shit happens. Doesn't change the fact that since humans joined the scene the pattern of ice age cycles has changed in a clear, measurable way.

It also doesn't change the fact that, though the earth survives such shifts, our modern society would not. You want to live on snowball earth? Or on Earth with sea levels up 5 feet, or 30 feet, or more?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 3:01 PM

Mal, it's tired and been done, and we've addressed it all before. Decaying plant material exudes 180 time the Co2, and probably a similar ratio of Ch4, as human industry.

My problems with this debate are multifold

1) It ignores climate, itself, the concept. Why doe the world mean temperature hug close to geothermal? One mights say it radiates, but that wouldn't explain why large portions of he planet differ radically from the geothermal mean.

Plants. Forest cover creates a massive convection cycle bringing up a tremendous volume of subsurface water that is sitting down closer to geothermal norm. The places where surface temperature differs greatest in both directions are forestless, so the temperature is free to flow at the whim of the sun, wind, and sure, things like the greenhouse effect. Don't believe me? Drive into a city. Then drive out again. Drive into a forest. Then Drive into a primeval forest. The temperature changes are dramatic each time.

2) It ignores math. Not only does human industry not produce enough carbon to create the effect, and what it creates is consumed by an engine turning over thousands of times more carbon each year than we could possibly produce.

The first thing you have to figure is how much Co2 we produce. I worked it out, and my personal use is, and it's about 3 times the amount that I use breathing. GW crowds says the world average is 10 times, the "naysayer" crowd says about .7 times. The issues are really "how many people drive" "how many miles does the average person drive" (very few drive as much as the US, Canada and Australia) and "what percent of out impact is our direct consumption?" (about 50%) So, that means for me, 6 times as much Co2 is produced by my part in industry as in my breathing.

This look at the human total biomass. Okay, what if we are producing 10 times as much as our norm per our biomass? Humans are <1% of the animal biomass, animal biomass is <1% of the land biomass and land biomass is <1% of the Earth biomass. Each of these things is producing and/or consuming Co2 all the time, and we're barely a spec on their radar. If do drive into the city, I pass through billions of trees each one weighing hundreds of tons. I realize that statistically I'm driving through one of the most densely populated parts of the planet, and just visually, I see no humans. I see a trillion times the biomass of the humans there, which is why I'm not seeing them. They're just not very significant.

Sure, humans have little human-dense deserts called cities, but these don't make up much of the surface or biomass of the Earth. Now, if you want to talk about *local* climate change, I'll agree with you.

3) It ignores anything else that might happen in the meantime. Said biomass is not a steady stable state, but is constantly in flux. With or without human intervention, it will change its intake and output of Co2 all the time. Right now, plants here are growing like never before. (In my lifetime) Why? Well, winter is shorter, the atmospheric Co2 is higher, and the water table is significantly higher. This isn't raising sea level, we're 1000 feet above sea level. So, my sister planted a tree two years ago, it's now towering 20 feet. That's new. It's not bad, but it sure is new. Could be any number of factors involved, including the evolution of trees, genetic differences. But I've been seeing a lot of that. We're probably in for a lot more of it.

4) I don't think it's a sincere scientific argument. Not yours, personally, but the overall debate. I think it's politically motivated, and so it contains elements of academic dishonesty to try to win over its goal, which ultimately probably boils down to each one trying to make the other side look bad.

To wit, here are some more issues with the story:

[Over 50 million years the temperature falls steadily, measured in glaciation]

Okay, there's the intermediate term temperature graph of the global mean. (60 million) The Ice Age cy

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 10:49 PM

Agreed about bickering, but I must disagree with so many things. Just because you've decided something, doesn't mean that it "has been decided." Especially when you can't state it with references, or without using "probably".

I don't know why you stick with the millions of years time scale. And you seem to debate by making assumptions with little or no basis: you first assume you're right, then use your assumptions to build a logical argument to prove that you're right. It's just not convincing.

Let's start here:

Quote:

Why doe the world mean temperature hug close to geothermal?

First of all, huh?

So... I'm not sure, but you seem to mean that the internal heat of the earth controls the climate. Though you then say that not everywhere on earth is the same as the "geothermal." Hence more Huh?

BTW: one might say that the earth's heat radiates, and that would be because it does. Blackbody radiation in the infrared.

You bring up "Plants growing like never before" - like how the earth was covered in old growth forests before human agriculture began? You mean Asia and Europe and Africa and South America and major parts of the US have somehow become all forested again?

It turns your whole "drive into a forest" argument against you: yes, forests effect temperature and atmospheric content. So how much forest has been lost since 10,000 years ago? Don't you think that would have change things, since by your own argument trees are so huge and important?

Speaking of which...

Quote:
If do drive into the city, I pass through billions of trees each one weighing hundreds of tons.

Hundreds of tons?

www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/ch/ch01%5CChvolume01page401.pdf

Tree weights vary from 0.25 to 10 tons. I'm sure a few northern CA trees go beyond that, but those are rare and take up a helluva lot more room.

Billions of trees? This I want to test.

There might be 300 trees per acre, if they're spaced by an average of 12 feet. That only allows 6 feet of branch radius for each tree - these aren't huge. No redwoods here. There's 640 acres in a mile^2, so about 2E+5 trees/mile^2.

In order to see "billions" of trees - let's call it 2 billion, you'd need to see 10,000 square miles. If you can see 10 miles each way off your highway, that's 500 miles of solidly wooded land you drove through. OK, not so far off as I'd expected, but still it's 50% longer than the north-south length of Maine. It works if you have to drive through most of New England to get to your city.

Now, I don't know what twisty stuff you're doing to find your personal CO2 use, and from that inferring the human CO2 contribution. Let's try this instead:

World Crude Oil production 1980-2007
Data from:
http://205.254.135.24/emeu/international/oilproduction.html
6.19E+11 barrels, 1 barrel = 42 gallons so that's 2.60E+13 gallons
Fuel oil produces 22.29 lbs of CO2/gal.
Total CO2 released: 5.80E+14 lbs of CO2

That's 2.90E+11 TONS of CO2 released since 1980.

That’s only from oil – doesn’t include natural gas and coal. In fact, it you’re willing to go with wikipedia as a source,

“Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently... about 27 billion tonnes per year.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmospher
e

27 billions tons of CO2 per year. How many trees does it take to process that? I'll leave that for later...

Anyhow, I'm sure this is all a waste of time because no climate change denier seems to use math in the way I'd expect. You know, with a calculator rather than with their hands waving in the air in front of them.

But this is a fun exercise and one I've been wanting to give my students. I'll probably put it into my classes this spring.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left