Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria"


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 4:49:20 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Real One

Umm- this wasn't clear enough- "Anyhow, EIA gives global CO2 production from fossil fuels at 26.9 billion tonnes in 2004"

Sam



What I am asking is how much natural co2 is produced so we can compare them them side by side.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 4:53:20 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		Just CO2, humanity contributes roughly 3%, but again figures vary



quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Real One

Umm- this wasn't clear enough- "Anyhow, EIA gives global CO2 production from fossil fuels at 26.9 billion tonnes in 2004"

Sam



What I am asking is how much natural co2 is produced so we can compare them them side by side.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 4:55:34 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

There's a lot of misinformation on this chat forum about global warming. I can't be here all the time to clean up after all ofit, but I do what I can. Here's one I've seen brought up twice today. So I'm reposting what I wrote on the thread about the Al Gore court case having been funded by the mining and petroleum industries.

This is one of the favorite myths of the Denial crowd. This notion was never put forth by more than a small handful of scientists. The popular press grabbed it and had a short salacious run with it, but it was never a widely accepted notion in the scientific community....


You are saying that it is a 'myth' that there was a global cooling scare which turned out to be wrong in the '70s when your own links clearly say that there was.


And why did that other thread come to a screeching halt when profiteering from Big Oil, re: Occidental Petroleum, was brought up?

(in reply to SuzanneKneeling)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:00:16 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

My data showed .3% but whos quibbling :)

So if humanity is contributing 3% of the total carbon then why are we terrified about global warming?

Is the earths eco system that fragile?

IOt seems to me that such low percentage rates would have little effect on long term carbon cycle.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:09:12 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		It's a little complicated, if (to pick some figures at random) the extra 3% contributed by humanity worked out at 0.2C, that 0.2C rise would then adjust the level of water vapour the atmosphere would automatically hold, which would further increase the temperature which would further increase the amount of watervapour (and C02 a tiny bit) etc etc until it reached the next equilibrium level....so the 3% probably works out as around 10% (really pulling numbers out of the air here).

Also....that 10% wouldn't mean the greenhouse effect would be 10% stronger.....as all the different gasses overlap and interact.....it's extreeeemly complicated.

So an extra 3% C02 per year could have absolutely no effect whatsoever, or quite a large effect, it's really very hard to tell.

It's also quite hard to tell, just what the effect of say....a 2C rise in temperatures would have on the icecaps/ecosystem in general.





quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



My data showed .3% but whos quibbling :)

So if humanity is contributing 3% of the total carbon then why are we terrified about global warming?

Is the earths eco system that fragile?

IOt seems to me that such low percentage rates would have little effect on long term carbon cycle.


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:10:36 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
This hypothesis that carbondioxide emission by humans causes global warming is easy to test by either doubling our annual CO2 emissions or by halving it. If the hypothesis is correct, we ought to see an immediate effect on the rate at which the cover of the sea ice annually decreases and increases. So I propose as a scientific experiment that we double the industrial CO2 emission. That ought to double the average global wealth as well.


You're a sociopath. Do you have any idea what the effective time constants are in this complex system you propose to shock? Or the residence times of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere? It would take a few decades to get an accurate read on exactly how much damage your idea delivered to our future habitat.

So many of your posts read as transparent homilies to the adage, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
I know plenty. What is more: I am a supergenius.

(in reply to SuzanneKneeling)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:16:42 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

It's a little complicated, if (to pick some figures at random) the extra 3% contributed by humanity worked out at 0.2C, that 0.2C rise would then adjust the level of water vapour the atmosphere would automatically hold, which would further increase the temperature which would further increase the amount of watervapour (and C02 a tiny bit) etc etc until it reached the next equilibrium level....so the 3% probably works out as around 10% (really pulling numbers out of the air here).

Also....that 10% wouldn't mean the greenhouse effect would be 10% stronger.....as all the different gasses overlap and interact.....it's extreeeemly complicated.

So an extra 3% C02 per year could have absolutely no effect whatsoever, or quite a large effect, it's really very hard to tell.

It's also quite hard to tell, just what the effect of say....a 2C rise in temperatures would have on the icecaps/ecosystem in general.





quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



My data showed .3% but whos quibbling :)

So if humanity is contributing 3% of the total carbon then why are we terrified about global warming?

Is the earths eco system that fragile?

IOt seems to me that such low percentage rates would have little effect on long term carbon cycle.




But but but but but that is only short lived because that hot water vapor rises and when it gets to the upper atmosphere turns to ice and the ice reflects much of the suns energy back into space while providing cloud cover.  Hence the natural balancing act.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:19:12 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		Erm, no, not really.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

It's a little complicated, if (to pick some figures at random) the extra 3% contributed by humanity worked out at 0.2C, that 0.2C rise would then adjust the level of water vapour the atmosphere would automatically hold, which would further increase the temperature which would further increase the amount of watervapour (and C02 a tiny bit) etc etc until it reached the next equilibrium level....so the 3% probably works out as around 10% (really pulling numbers out of the air here).

Also....that 10% wouldn't mean the greenhouse effect would be 10% stronger.....as all the different gasses overlap and interact.....it's extreeeemly complicated.

So an extra 3% C02 per year could have absolutely no effect whatsoever, or quite a large effect, it's really very hard to tell.

It's also quite hard to tell, just what the effect of say....a 2C rise in temperatures would have on the icecaps/ecosystem in general.





quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



My data showed .3% but whos quibbling :)

So if humanity is contributing 3% of the total carbon then why are we terrified about global warming?

Is the earths eco system that fragile?

IOt seems to me that such low percentage rates would have little effect on long term carbon cycle.




But but but but but that is only short lived because that hot water vapor rises and when it gets to the upper atmosphere turns to ice and the ice reflects much of the suns energy back into space while providing cloud cover.  Hence the natural balancing act.


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:22:50 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

Erm, no, not really.



kool.... waiting....


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:27:04 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		There is no natural balancing act, look how hot venus got purely through natural causes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

Erm, no, not really.



kool.... waiting....


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:27:41 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
It's a little complicated, if (to pick some figures at random) the extra 3% contributed by humanity worked out at 0.2C, that 0.2C rise would then adjust the level of water vapour the atmosphere would automatically hold, which would further increase the temperature which would further increase the amount of watervapour (and C02 a tiny bit) etc etc until it reached the next equilibrium level....so the 3% probably works out as around 10% (really pulling numbers out of the air here).
Indeed. Fortunately you have provided us with the solution to stop the global warming crisis: hold your breath. When you hold your breath, you will not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As a result the global temperature will decrease a tiny bit. Hence the atmosphere would hold less water vapour, which would further decrease the temperature which would further decrease the amount of watervapour (and C02 a tiny bit) etc etc until it reached the next equilibrium level... So you holding your breath will probably result in the whole world freezing over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
Also....that 10% wouldn't mean the greenhouse effect would be 10% stronger.....as all the different gasses overlap and interact.....it's extreeeemly complicated.

Yes it is, isn't it? Complicated, I mean. Especially when "really pulling numbers out of the air".

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
So an extra 3% C02 per year could have absolutely no effect whatsoever, or quite a large effect, it's really very hard to tell.

Indeed. So you agree that this global warming hysteria is all nonsense?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
It's also quite hard to tell, just what the effect of say....a 2C rise in temperatures would have on the icecaps/ecosystem in general.

Erhm, a two degrees rise in mean global temperatures is HUGE.

< Message edited by Rule -- 10/17/2007 5:29:06 PM >

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:31:36 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		Then why hasnt the earth fried or stayed forzen from past history?  Seems like a pretty poor example to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

There is no natural balancing act, look how hot venus got purely through natural causes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

Erm, no, not really.



kool.... waiting....




_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:34:54 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		Dear Rule, I believe I made it enormously clear that I was making up those numbers for the sake of the explanation, and I am aware that 2C is a big rise, that was my point, that we don't know how much effect even a big rise will have.

And yes, I agree that all this hysteria about man-made global warming is ridiculous. I think you just won a medal in long-jumping to wrong conclusions

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
It's a little complicated, if (to pick some figures at random) the extra 3% contributed by humanity worked out at 0.2C, that 0.2C rise would then adjust the level of water vapour the atmosphere would automatically hold, which would further increase the temperature which would further increase the amount of watervapour (and C02 a tiny bit) etc etc until it reached the next equilibrium level....so the 3% probably works out as around 10% (really pulling numbers out of the air here).
Indeed. Fortunately you have provided us with the solution to stop the global warming crisis: hold your breath. When you hold your breath, you will not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As a result the global temperature will decrease a tiny bit. Hence the atmosphere would hold less water vapour, which would further decrease the temperature which would further decrease the amount of watervapour (and C02 a tiny bit) etc etc until it reached the next equilibrium level... So you holding your breath will probably result in the whole world freezing over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
Also....that 10% wouldn't mean the greenhouse effect would be 10% stronger.....as all the different gasses overlap and interact.....it's extreeeemly complicated.

Yes it is, isn't it? Complicated, I mean. Especially when "really pulling numbers out of the air".

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
So an extra 3% C02 per year could have absolutely no effect whatsoever, or quite a large effect, it's really very hard to tell.

Indeed. So you agree that this global warming hysteria is all nonsense?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
It's also quite hard to tell, just what the effect of say....a 2C rise in temperatures would have on the icecaps/ecosystem in general.

Erhm, a two degrees rise in mean global temperatures is HUGE.



Edited for typo

< Message edited by DCWoody -- 10/17/2007 5:36:23 PM >

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:36:29 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
There is no natural balancing act, look how hot venus got purely through natural causes.
I quote from my post 27 in this thread:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
My response is b)- first because I read the results of lab experiments that show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (wanna look at Venus as an example?)

Venus is a wrong and even non argument. I predict that Venus radiates more heat into space than it receives as radiation from the sun.

 
I doubt that the hot atmosphere of Venus has got anything to do with carbon dioxide.

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:41:28 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		you'd be completely wrong, venus is hot due to the fact that its atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
There is no natural balancing act, look how hot venus got purely through natural causes.
I quote from my post 27 in this thread:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
My response is b)- first because I read the results of lab experiments that show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (wanna look at Venus as an example?)

Venus is a wrong and even non argument. I predict that Venus radiates more heat into space than it receives as radiation from the sun.

 
I doubt that the hot atmosphere of Venus has got anything to do with carbon dioxide.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:49:05 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
venus is hot due to the fact that its atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide

I doubt that you or anyone can prove that assertion. You might as well have asserted that elephants have a trunk because they can piss.

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:55:54 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		The greenhouse effect is a universally accepted scientific theory, like evolution or gravity. I'm gonna go with that over your elephant hypothesis.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
venus is hot due to the fact that its atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide

I doubt that you or anyone can prove that assertion. You might as well have asserted that elephants have a trunk because they can piss.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 5:56:25 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline 		From NASA's Venus page:

Venus is covered by thick, rapidly spinning clouds that trap surface heat, creating a scorched greenhouse-like world with temperatures hot enough to melt lead and pressure so intense that standing on Venus would feel like the pressure felt 900 meters deep in Earth's oceans. These clouds reflect sunlight in addition to trapping heat. Because Venus reflects so much sunlight, it is usually the brightest planet in the sky.

The atmosphere consists mainly of carbon dioxide, with clouds of sulfuric acid droplets. Only trace amounts of water have been detected in the atmosphere. The thick atmosphere traps the Sun's heat, resulting in surface temperatures over 470 degrees Celsius (880 degrees Fahrenheit). Probes that have landed on Venus have not survived more than a few hours before being destroyed by the incredibly high temperatures.

(Emphasis added.)



_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 6:03:56 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
The greenhouse effect is a universally accepted scientific theory, like evolution or gravity. I'm gonna go with that over your elephant hypothesis.
I am not accepting it as it pertains to Venus, so it is not universally accepted. In any case if heat cannot be radiated through atmosphere into space, then convection will occur that transports the hot air to the outer parts of the atmosphere where it is radiated into space, so it is gotten rid off anyway.

< Message edited by Rule -- 10/17/2007 6:10:14 PM >

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria... - 10/17/2007 6:09:09 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
These clouds reflect sunlight in addition to trapping heat. Because Venus reflects so much sunlight, it is usually the brightest planet in the sky.
So you can parrot NASA dogma. Why am I not impressed and convinced? If those clouds reflect all that sunlight, then how can they possibly trap heat caused by that sunlight?

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.250