Mal4Prez nails the climate change debate...

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 04:17
VIEWED: 12057
PAGE 4 of 11

He actually did show his work once. After I figured out where he'd gotten the numbers from, I followed his math on a calculator, it came out the same. The main question remaining is whether the equation was set up right and if we missed any sources or sinks for the closed system.

I'm also not sure why there's any problem with looking at temperature data or CO2 data for the cenozoic era in total.

Also, he does think cutting trees has an impact, he wasn't ever arguing that they don't. His argument is more against industry, not that there's no climate change, temperature change, or change in CO2 levels.

Aw, no one wants to discuss break period versus Milankovitch predictions and northern borings versus southern borings with me. ._.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Byte, I saw a show about something like that when I was at my grandma's house a couple of weeks ago and my dad and I tried to watch it but it was just ending when we turned it on and we had to leave to go home anyways. Sorry I don't have anything more relevent to say on the matter, but that stuff is interesting.

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

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"What started 8000 years ago that might have affected CO2 levels ? ... And 5000 years ago that might have affected methane levels?"

I'm not seeing it, simply b/c populations levels were very low back then (estimated 7M and 14M). https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pbb0aoD3hdM-HgD-knTGXIA
If it takes the full press of a large population and modern technology to put the Amazon under pressure today, enough to see a global effect, could a relatively small scattered population with limited technology create global CO2 and methane change?

Are there calculation estimates for that?


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....

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Aw, no one wants to discuss break period versus Milankovitch predictions and northern borings versus southern borings with me. ._.

---

Milankovitch cycles are cool. I don't know what the rest of it is - arctic ice vs subarctic ice? Please explain!

(But I can't visit fff at work, and I'll be there late today, so you may not hear back for a while.)


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

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"What started 8000 years ago that might have affected CO2 levels ? ... And 5000 years ago that might have affected methane levels?"

I'm not seeing it, simply b/c populations levels were very low back then (estimated 7M and 14M). https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pbb0aoD3hdM-HgD-knTGXIA
If it takes the full press of a large population and modern technology to put the Amazon under pressure today, enough to see a global effect, could a relatively small scattered population with limited technology create global CO2 and methane change?

Are there calculation estimates for that?

---

There are. I'll dig them out when I get a chance.

BTW, despite appearances, I'm not completely convinced by this idea. But it's the first compelling science I've seen behind climate change. I'm waiting for a solid argument to counter it - "solid" meaning based on science and actual measurements, rather than hand waving over what people think should be intuitively obvious.

If I've learned one thing from teaching, it's that human intuition sucks at science.

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

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

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.

---

Okay, Kiki, let's say "I won't be around..."


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

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

I'm not seeing it, simply b/c populations levels were very low back then (estimated 7M and 14M).

---

It's actually a very interesting argument. Around that time, both slash and burn and also growing rice in rice paddies was starting to kick off. The slash and burn has some obvious greenhouse releases, but it was also thought that the rice paddies might release a lot of methane.

I'd have to see if I could find some manner of chart showing any possible CO2 or methane increase at the time to confirm it, but if Milankovitch cycles are at all accurate in predicting the onset of an ice age, then early human civilization derailed it before it could start.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

I don't know what the rest of it is - arctic ice vs subarctic ice? Please explain!

---

Okay, so your lake sediment borings from Alaska up north are showing midge flies which show some approximate temperatures, right? From those temperatures scientists are determining that we're in a ice age break period.

But ice cores from Antarctica and the Milankovitch cycles suggest we should have started an ice age about ten thousand years ago, and one theory about that is that human agriculture kinda derailed it.

So it's an interesting question of what's going on here? And the idea I came up with, that I was attempting to run past you, is that the arrangement of landmasses around the sampling site is actually having a noticeable impact on the climate record at those sites. The midge flies are showing a warmer than ice age climate, consistent with a break period, but that might be due to the fact that there's landmass around Alaska and the Arctic Ocean and has been for quite some time. Landmasses get warmer than ocean.

Meanwhile, down south you have some ice cores that suggest an ice age cycle more consistent with the Milankovitch cycle. But on the other hand, Antarctica has very little landmass around it and it's high, icy albedo means it's going to be colder than average as well.

It's just interesting to see the differences. Trying to adjust for those differences could be a key factor in determining where we are in a climate sense. If we really were meant to be in an ice age right now, then it's kind of a whoa nelly! But if we're meant to be in a break period, it's kinda like, well, the earth has been relatively warm in general, humans are making it warmer, is there a significance and how much is significant?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:

I don't know why you stick with the millions of years time scale.

---

I added it to the data set because you excluded it. I don't know why you excluded it. Adding prospect shows radical departure from the theory, which is based on short term data and the exclusion of conflicting data. That's not good science, hell, it's not science at all. It's politics. This is what politicians do. They show you islamic radicals fighting and they do not show you islamic radical charities. It's the same with anything. Also, science does not make sweeping statement or draw end times scenarios.

Quote:

---

And you seem to debate by making assumptions with little or no basis

---

WTF.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why doe the world mean temperature hug close to geothermal?

---

First of all, huh?

---

Have you even *met* geology?



[above graph shows geologic subsurface anomaly (hotspot) in reference to standard gradient.

Any theory involving climate should first know what the fuck it is and how it works. The median temperature of the earth is drawn to a geothermal mean, as per the gradient, by means of convection.

Quote:

---

Though you then say that not everywhere on earth is the same as the "geothermal." Hence more Huh?

---

Yes, you see large derivations in the middle east (120F) and Antartica (-70F) which you do not see in more heavily forested areas, perhaps because less convection is taking place. Under antarctica, where the critters live, it's 40F, fairly similar to under Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

If we go to a heavily forested area, like the amazon, if there was no such thing as convection, we might expect to see that it was the same temperate as Iraq. The average temperature in the rainforest is 80F. Not that different from here in the summer. So, sure, the position of the sun affects the temperature, but heat also radiates from the earth, and also, temperature is exchanged by convection.

A hotspot is an anomaly, also based on convection. But Saudi Arabia is not a hotspot anomaly, it's a desert.

Quote:

---

You bring up "Plants growing like never before"

---

Relative to my experience with them. It was hyperbola.

Quote:

---

So how much forest has been lost since 10,000 years ago?

---

Since humans, quite a bit, of course after the ice age, forest cover increased. It changes. The Earth changes.

Quote:

---

Don't you think that would have change things

---

Sure. Notice any very large changes on the chart of millions of years in temp and atmospheric co2 having nothing to do with humans?

Quote:

---

Hundreds of tons?

---

Met any trees?

Quote:

---

Tree weights vary from 0.25 to 10 tons.

---

Seriously, have you met any trees? I've planted trees that weigh 0.25 tons or 500 pounds as we call it. When they come down, I cannot carry them away. Trees can weigh anything, but first growth trees can weigh a lot more. Now you are nitpicking.

Billions of trees? This I want to test.

Quote:

---

There might be 300 trees per acre,

---

Depends on the trees, but sure.

Quote:

---

if they're spaced by an average of 12 feet.

---

Sure,

Quote:

---

That only allows 6 feet of branch radius for each tree

---

There are no branches at the base.

Okay, you're really wasting time. The forest is 200 miles on a side, so I can calculate the number of trees: 7,680,000,000

That's billions. That's more trees than there are humans on the Earth.

Why are you doing this? Nitpicking every offhand comment I make. It's just a dick move. You're wasting my time. Clearly, the biomass of trees exceeds that of humans, that was the point. There are virtually no humans as a biomass, we are biomass irrelevant as a species. So is our industry.

Mal, I did the math, a few times here, and you intentionally ignored it. Most of the world's biomass is in the sea. 37.5 trillion tons of carbon, which if burned would be 137 trillion tons of co2. Circulating, there are about 6 trill

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME