Extreme is the New Normal

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:14 pm

fig tree wrote:The pre-industrial level of CO2 is thought to have been about 280 parts per million. Now it's about 390 parts per million. We also have good evidence that it's there because we put it there. ... It's clearly our doing.


Within the larger scope, CO2 levels were ABOVE 1,000ppm for 100s of millions of years.

Currently they are at about 390ppm. 390 today vs 1,000 (and as higher as 7,000 in Cambrian)!!!! It actually seems like we are LOOSING CO2 at an alarming rate. That should be a bigger concern. See the graph.

co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
co2-levels-over-time1.jpg (96.37 KiB) Viewed 489 times


In a lot of what you're quoting, there's a kind of unstated argument that runs sort of like this. If there have been big changes that don't have to do with human beings adding CO2 to the atmosphere, then we can reckon that this time too might have nothing to do with us. But this is just sloppy. Even assuming climate varied as described (which seems incorrect) we'd still have a problem.


Current CO2 levels 390ppm.
They have stayed above 1,000 ppm for hundreds of millions of years, and in some case reached 7,000ppm.


What caused such increase and decrease (in Cambrian after going to 7,000 it fell to about 4,500ppm again) ? If nature could do that at those times, it can do again.


Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby clw_uk » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:48 pm

Even if global warming as the result of the activity of humans was false, we would still need to cut back on things such as deforestation and the use of fossil fuels, eventually abandoning fossil fuels forever



Just my two cents anyway


:focus:
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby clw_uk » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:52 pm

Again, certain people keep pushing aside data of far past. Why? Because it shows that MUCH more CO2 was produced and lost before the modern civilization. Those levels of CO2 and global temperature humble current levels. So why be scared?



Because it is irrelevant to the question of if Humans are causing climate change now, or play a part in it


Also because slight variations in temperature do have effects
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:02 pm

clw_uk wrote:Even if global warming as the result of the activity of humans was false, we would still need to cut back on things such as deforestation and the use of fossil fuels, eventually abandoning fossil fuels forever
Just my two cents anyway
:focus:


It would be good if people also planted more trees and help the regrow. Sure. No disagreement here. I am also all for responsible usage of the environment.

However, IMHO, human rights are more important than "rights of trees".


I agree that it would be awesome if humans developed a better (equally or more efficient, cleaner, safer, etc) kind of fuel than gasoline.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:06 pm

clw_uk wrote:
Again, certain people keep pushing aside data of far past. Why? Because it shows that MUCH more CO2 was produced and lost before the modern civilization. Those levels of CO2 and global temperature humble current levels. So why be scared?



Because it is irrelevant to the question of if Humans are causing climate change now, or play a part in it


Also because slight variations in temperature do have effects



And those variations in temperature and CO2 levels have been happening in both directions. IMHO we should not rely too much on linear graph of CO2 from 1958-2010 that is found in http://co2now.org to predict the future.


We could extrapolate that linear graph backwards and come to the wrong conclusion that there was no CO2 274 years ago (390 / 1.4 ppm per year).
So just as we can't correctly extrapolate it to the past, maybe the similar could be said about the future.


When it comes to 1958-2010 the CO2 graph looks scarily upward. But when we look at CO2 graph over MILLIONS of years, the overal trend is down.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby clw_uk » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:12 pm

However, IMHO, human rights are more important than "rights of trees".



Your forgetting that we need a good number of trees in order for there to be humans to have rights
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby clw_uk » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:13 pm

Alex123 wrote:
clw_uk wrote:
Again, certain people keep pushing aside data of far past. Why? Because it shows that MUCH more CO2 was produced and lost before the modern civilization. Those levels of CO2 and global temperature humble current levels. So why be scared?



Because it is irrelevant to the question of if Humans are causing climate change now, or play a part in it


Also because slight variations in temperature do have effects



And those variations in temperature and CO2 levels have been happening in both directions. IMHO we should not rely too much on linear graph of CO2 from 1958-2010 that is found in http://co2now.org to predict the future.


We could extrapolate that linear graph backwards and come to the wrong conclusion that there was no CO2 274 years ago (390 / 1.4 ppm per year).
So just as we can't correctly extrapolate it to the past, maybe the similar could be said about the future.


When it comes to 1958-2010 the CO2 graph looks scarily upward. But when we look at CO2 graph over MILLIONS of years, the overal trend is down.




Straw man
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:22 pm

clw_uk wrote:Straw man



Exactly where? It is easy to say "you or your argument is wrong". But please tell me exactly where mistake is, and why it is a mistake in the first place.


Total CO2 presence in the atmosphere represents less than 4/10 of 1 percent. (CO2 is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill - all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal 40 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html . Man made CO2 represents 1/20th of that amount or 2 cents out of every $100 Dollar Bill.

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmer’s field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself, “Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby clw_uk » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:24 pm

Exactly where? It is easy to say "you or your argument is wrong". But please tell me exactly where mistake is, and why it is a mistake in the first place.



I didnt say it was wrong I said it was a straw man
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby clw_uk » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:30 pm

I will repeat it


Because it is irrelevant (if CO2 and temperatures were higher in the past) to the question of if Humans are causing climate change now, or play a part in it


Also because slight variations in temperature do have effects




Banging on about the Cambrian age is a straw man since it does not answer


If Humans are causing climate change now?
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:42 pm

clw_uk wrote:Banging on about the Cambrian age is a straw man since it does not answer

If Humans are causing climate change now?



There are these questions:

1) If humans didn't cause CO2 levels to go from 4,500 to 7,000 in the Cambrian age, then what did? Nature?

If nature could do it then to a much greater degree than humans can, why can't nature be mostly responsible now? Climate was changing for billions of years, and something tells me that there were far worser environmental extremes in the distant past that would make current worst calamities look like heaven on earth.

2) If humans actually do have ANY contribution to the rising of CO2 levels, how large and significant is it?

As it was said:

Total CO2 presence in the atmosphere represents less than 4/10 of 1 percent. (CO2 is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill - all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal 40 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html . Man made CO2 represents 1/20th of that amount or 2 cents out of every $100 Dollar Bill.

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmer’s field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself, “Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby clw_uk » Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:58 pm

1) If humans didn't cause CO2 levels to go from 4,500 to 7,000 in the Cambrian age, then what did? Nature?


Firstly no one is denying that CO2 has arisen in the past due to nature

Secondly this is a fallacy, just because it was caused by nature in the past does not mean that Human activity now is not the cause or plays some part. It just doesnt follow




2) If humans actually do have ANY contribution to the rising of CO2 levels, how large and significant is it?


Finally your approaching the issue, only took god knows how many posts
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby clw_uk » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:05 pm

“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:19 pm

clw_uk wrote:Firstly no one is denying that CO2 has arisen in the past due to nature

Secondly this is a fallacy, just because it was caused by nature in the past does not mean that Human activity now is not the cause or plays some part. It just doesnt follow


But just like increase of CO2 in the past was not caused by humans, why can't current increase in CO2 also not be significantly caused by humans?

Levels of CO2 go in cyclical fashion. Sometimes up, sometimes down. The often cited graphs, are highly selective to only show those parts where CO2 went up, but quietly omit CO2 graphs that show CO2 going down.



Alex wrote:2) If humans actually do have ANY contribution to the rising of CO2 levels, how large and significant is it?

clw_uk wrote:Finally your approaching the issue, only took god knows how many posts


Almost nothing that humans do (save perhaps detonating 100s or more nukes) seriously affects temperature levels. Nature is much more powerful.

There is

Humans burn 30 Billion tonnes of CO2 per year.
That is 2 ppm in the atmosphere
That is 15 billion tonnes per 1 ppm (30/2 = 15).

UN says we are going to increase 468 ppm in the next century. That means that 7 trillion tonnes of CO2 will be produced in the next century.
(468 x 15 billion tonnes = 7020 (7 trillion tonnes of CO2 in the next century).

UN says that there will be 7 Fahrenheit increase. That means that for every 1 trillion of CO2 emissions there is change of 1 degree of Fahrenheit.

In order to forestall 1 Fahrenheit increase, we need to stop burning 1 trillion of CO2 emissions . If we burn 30 billion tonnes per year.


How long will we have to go without ANY carbon emission to forestall ONE increase in Fahrenheit? 33 years without ANY CARS, ANY ELECTRICITY that emits CO2.

Remember that humans also exhale CO2...

So even if human civilization would drop to cave man stage or even disappear, IN 33 YEARS we would not have 1 Fahrenheit increase in global temperature. As you see, there is nothing economically reasonable that we can do . And nature can and has increased or decreased CO2 levels. So regardless of what we do when it comes to CO2 emissions, nature has an upper hand anyways.







Total CO2 presence in the atmosphere represents less than 4/10 of 1 percent. (CO2 is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill - all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal 40 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html . Man made CO2 represents 1/20th of that amount or 2 cents out of every $100 Dollar Bill.

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmer’s field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself, “Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures.



Please refute the facts, rather then the messenger. Please use logic rather than emotion.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:25 pm

clw_uk wrote:Some links about Climate Change if anyone is interested


http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/



Image


Oh, really? The levels of CO2 were above 1,000ppm for MILLIONS OF YEARS prior to Homo Sapiens.
This is kind of selective bias that I am talking above. Show only 650,000 years of data that makes it look like CO2 increasing, but ignore 100s of millions of years where CO2 is actually going down from 7,000 ppm to modern 390ppm. Note that CO2 levels can go up and down of 1000s of ppm, and have done so millions of years ago, in up/down directions.


co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
co2-levels-over-time1.jpg (96.37 KiB) Viewed 461 times






Even if human civilization would drop dead, IN 33 YEARS we would prevent a 1 Fahrenheit increase in global temperature. Nature can increase temperature much more than humans can. As you see, there is nothing economically reasonable that we can do . Nature can and has increased or decreased CO2 levels. So regardless of what we do when it comes to CO2 emissions, nature has an upper hand anyways.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby andre9999 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:38 pm

You're all certainly aware that nobody here is going to be convinced to change their mind.

What is the point of this thread? I'm honestly asking.
User avatar
andre9999
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:47 pm

andre9999 wrote:You're all certainly aware that nobody here is going to be convinced to change their mind.

What is the point of this thread? I'm honestly asking.



It is unfortunate that some people cannot think, and use emotional arguments instead. Global warming is a great excuse to create new taxes. Too bad.


Global Warmist's favorite tactics is to use selective and limited data that supports their viewpoint, and refuse under any excuse, all other data that doesn't support but on the contrary reject their claims. They also like to attack the messenger rather then the argument itself, as they can't refute careful arguments showing the man-made GW is almost 0% if not total zero.


There is absolutely NOTHING special about todays temperatures. They were globally higher during certain periods of times, like the middle ages. The temperatures were also MUCH higher hundreds of millions years ago. So there is nothing special in current temperatures. In 1970s there were scares about global cooling because temperature was dropping sharply from 40s to 70s... Now, ~30 years later we have been scared by global warming... Did the industry that emits CO2 and is supposed to cause global warming started in late 70 or 80s?


Last edited by Alex123 on Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby nathan » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:51 pm

andre9999 wrote:You're all certainly aware that nobody here is going to be convinced to change their mind.

What is the point of this thread? I'm honestly asking.


Extreme points of view is the new normal.
:woohoo:
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:00 pm

nathan wrote:Extreme points of view is the new normal.
:woohoo:



In the 1970s there were scares of global cooling. Today we are being scared (and new taxes are proposed) with global warming...


1) "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."

2) "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade."

1. Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science (Hardcover). Report of the National Science Board. Government Printing Office. 1972. pp. 55. http://www.archive.org/details/patternsperspect00nati.

2. Report of the National Science Board. Government Printing Office. 1974. pp. 24. http://www.archive.org/details/sciencechallenge00nati.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby andre9999 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:02 pm

Alex, that didn't even vaguely answer the question, and mostly was completely ad hominem. What is the point of arguing about this? What do you, or anyone else for that matter, aim to do?
User avatar
andre9999
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: appicchato, Bing [Bot], Unrul3r, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests