While we're thinking about protecting the environment ... dont' forget Earth Hour
It's largely symbolic, of course, but we need symbols and it's a lovely one.
http://www.earthhour.org/
Kim
global warming
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: global warming
If some one can find that thread for me, I'll merge them.manas wrote:One solution that might please everyone concerned, would be to merge this topic with something called 'The Great Global Warming Debate',
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: global warming
I don't think there is one, Tilt - and if there was, I'm sure I would remember it.tiltbillings wrote:If some one can find that thread for me, I'll merge them.manas wrote:One solution that might please everyone concerned, would be to merge this topic with something called 'The Great Global Warming Debate',
Manas may be thinking of "The New Normal", which qualifies as a Great Global Warming Debate, or he may be suggesting a new all-in-one equivalent of the Great Rebirth thread. At this stage, however, this thread has taken on a life of its own, it has a good general title and the "New Normal" has been dead and locked for months. Maybe this thread should be the beginning of any ongoing 'Great Global Warming Debate'?
Kim
Edit: added an afterthought.
Re: global warming
Kim O'Hara wrote:Thanks, Buckwheat -
Mr Man wrote:lots ofBuckwheat wrote:
Indeed, up to a third time, let me also express admiration for your patience and tenacity in skillfully addressing those various points. Where innumerable means of making statements abounded, you chose among the best ways of wording and phrasing.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: global warming
Right. It shows that when we take a wider, more inclusive perspective, today's levels are not too hot. They are actually closer to ICE Age.Buckwheat wrote:This chart shows temperatures over hundreds of millions of years.Alex123 wrote:See this:
Just like we can't make predictions about football game from first 1/1000th of a second, same about current weather. As someone has said, an eruption of volcano can easily over ride human contributions over decades.Buckwheat wrote:The industrial revolution has only been affecting the atmosphere for about one millionth of that time scale. This chart is totally irrelevant to the discussion... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
As for extinction events. There have been previous extinction events in past hundreds of million years where MOST life forms have died. As your link says:
Even without humans, mass extinctions occur.
- "Over 98% of documented species are now extinct,"
Last edited by Alex123 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: global warming
How much of atmosphere is C02? 0.039%Buckwheat wrote:In another post by Alex, he cited that humans are adding 3.76% more CO2, than the natural emission of earth processes. 3.76% of any Earth process is no chump change. In fact, I'm a little shocked at how high that number is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
How much is 3.76% of 0.039% ?!!!!! 0.376*0.039 = 0.0014664%
This means that nature itself affects 100-0.0014664= 99.9985336% atmosphere.
So, the earth "sneezes" and it can easily cancel out any man made changes (if any).
Re: global warming
It is not changing fast at all. In fact some reports suggest that it has stopped getting much warmer. And even IF, even IF, it is getting warmer - how do we know that it is our "0.0014664%" contribution of a gas to the atmosphere that doesn't even cause global warming? Sun and weather events on Earth are much more powerful than us and can easily cancel out any (if any) effects we have made.Buckwheat wrote: What matters is how fast it's changing right now.
I can find more graphs like:
Re: global warming
Maybe Danielion can interject and list the number of errors of logic in the preceding three posts.
E.g.
1. the fact that there is not a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere does not mean that it has no effect, just like me taking mere 0.0001% of potassium cyanide in my drink does not mean it will have no effect on my health.
2. Extensive modeling of the greenhouse effects on C02 has been done and shown that not only does it cause warming, but the amounts we have contributed can cause significant warming.
etc
Some years ago I've worked with a scientist who was a co-author of one of the UN Reports on Climate Change who's also written several pamphlets debunking common myths and misconceptions (more on that below). He was the first to admit that the precise extent of the warming is very hard to predict. A lot of uncertainty still exists but not in the actual fact of warming, just in the extent. Here's pretty thorough info written by some of the top people in the field (if anyone is interested in getting informed on the subject):
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate ... ntury.aspx
More detail:
http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange.html
And it's also a good idea to try to inform oneself on the concept of a "trend". For the impatient and the time-challenged:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/ ... ll-correct
Here's an interesting read for everybody on how vital issues have been obfuscated by the special interest groups:
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
E.g.
1. the fact that there is not a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere does not mean that it has no effect, just like me taking mere 0.0001% of potassium cyanide in my drink does not mean it will have no effect on my health.
2. Extensive modeling of the greenhouse effects on C02 has been done and shown that not only does it cause warming, but the amounts we have contributed can cause significant warming.
etc
Some years ago I've worked with a scientist who was a co-author of one of the UN Reports on Climate Change who's also written several pamphlets debunking common myths and misconceptions (more on that below). He was the first to admit that the precise extent of the warming is very hard to predict. A lot of uncertainty still exists but not in the actual fact of warming, just in the extent. Here's pretty thorough info written by some of the top people in the field (if anyone is interested in getting informed on the subject):
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate ... ntury.aspx
More detail:
http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange.html
And it's also a good idea to try to inform oneself on the concept of a "trend". For the impatient and the time-challenged:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/ ... ll-correct
Here's an interesting read for everybody on how vital issues have been obfuscated by the special interest groups:
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
_/|\_
Re: global warming
You are totally ignoring all the counter-arguments I made. The only new point you made was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
Even without humans, there is death. Does that make murder OK? No, it does not. Do we want to be the generation that allows a mass extinction to occur because we are too busy chasing fleeting pleasures to make the sacrifices necessary to prevent the mass extinction? Let's be clear: we are in the middle of a major extinction event, and it is caused by human action. We may choose to continue killing, or we may choose to reduce our impact to allow natural forces to resume their natural ebb and flow.Alex123 wrote:As for extinction events. There have been previous extinction events in past hundreds of million years where MOST life forms have died. As your link says:Even without humans, mass extinctions occur."Over 98% of documented species are now extinct,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Re: global warming
Please find me a quote from reputable climate scientists saying that human contribution of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is insignificant.Alex123 wrote:How much of atmosphere is C02? 0.039%Buckwheat wrote:In another post by Alex, he cited that humans are adding 3.76% more CO2, than the natural emission of earth processes. 3.76% of any Earth process is no chump change. In fact, I'm a little shocked at how high that number is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
How much is 3.76% of 0.039% ?!!!!! 0.376*0.039 = 0.0014664%
This means that nature itself affects 100-0.0014664= 99.9985336% atmosphere.
So, the earth "sneezes" and it can easily cancel out any man made changes (if any).
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Re: global warming
Um... did you notice that the black line is in an upward trend? Climate models have come a long way for improved accuracy in the last decade, and you seem to be using old data. What is the source for this document?Alex123 wrote:It is not changing fast at all. In fact some reports suggest that it has stopped getting much warmer. And even IF, even IF, it is getting warmer - how do we know that it is our "0.0014664%" contribution of a gas to the atmosphere that doesn't even cause global warming? Sun and weather events on Earth are much more powerful than us and can easily cancel out any (if any) effects we have made.Buckwheat wrote: What matters is how fast it's changing right now.
I can find more graphs like:
I can find more graphs like this.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Re: global warming
So are you equating producing carbon dioxide with murder?Buckwheat wrote:Even without humans, there is death. Does that make murder OK?
So, Kim's site is NOT reputable?!!! http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htmBuckwheat wrote: Please find me a quote from reputable climate scientists saying that human contribution of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is insignificant.
??
Can you say something about my calculations? You and Kim seem to have one type of argument:
- "You are wrong Alex. You are using junk science. We have the Truth".
I also did some more calculations:
Person breath out ~1kg of C02 per day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2#Human_physiology
1kg x human population (7.073 billion) x 365 = 2,581.645 Billion of kg of CO2 humans exhale per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
So even IF, even IF, we would stop ALL industrial emission of CO2 through great sacrifice of living standards , humans would STILL produce 2,581.645 Billion kilograms of C02 per year. What would you propose then? Stop breathing?!
Last edited by Alex123 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: global warming
The short term "trend" seemed to have stalled at year 2000. Considering that we are close to ICE Age, it is great that temperatures bounced back a bit, a bit.Buckwheat wrote:Um... did you notice that the black line is in an upward trend?
When we look at charts of greater and more important scale, the trend is still down. We are closer to Ice age rather than hothouse a more usual temperature for earth.
Judging a future trend of weather by few decades or even 133 years is like trying to see the trend of a game by first 1/100th of a second.
Anyone trades stocks/currencies? If the trend on a daily chart is down and trend on 1 minute chart is up. What is long term trend? Down, of course. Same is here.
Re: global warming
"It's good that children are encouraged to be critical thinkers. But it would've been great if they were taught how to do so."
---Anon
---Anon
_/|\_