climate change (again) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

LadyEllen -> climate change (again) (12/16/2009 2:50:31 PM)

1) Keeling made measurements of CO2 levels in the atmosphere over several decades that showed the levels increasing, year on year. His son now continues his work with the same results.

2a) CO2 acts as an insulator - it is a "greenhouse gas", preventing heat from the sun escaping the atmosphere; this can be easily demonstrated with a glass tube filled with CO2, a candle and a camera. 
2b) Venus provides us with an example of greenhouse gas effects with an atmosphere made up of such gases that results in it being so hot that probes sent to land there last less than five minutes before being critically damaged by the high temperatures.

3) The global population has increased from around 1 billion in 1800, (a level it took 10,000 years to reach) to around 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1964, 4 billion in 1978, 5 billion in 1990, 6 billion in 2000 - a fantastic rate of growth and rate of increase in growth in the last two centuries or so that are projected to increase/ accelerate further in the next decades.

4) People need food and water and shelter; the massive increase in people has led to massive incursion into wilderness areas with consequent loss of species and so damage to the eco-system which we rely on for our food and water which we may not yet have fully realised. Further, this incursion has replaced wilderness that either locked up or absorbed vast amounts of CO2 with agricultural activity far less effective in this regard.

5a) Accompanying, driving as well as supporting the massive increase in population has been enormous industrial growth almost exclusively reliant on methods that result in CO2 emissions.
5b) And accompanying that industrial growth has been in many parts of the world an enormous rise in living standards that is also almost exclusively reliant on methods that result in CO2 emissions. At work and at home and travelling between the two, CO2 emissions are produced to support us.

Do the climate change sceptics dispute any of these facts of the case as presented, in whole or in part?

We are not interested at this stage in interpretations of the facts or projected scenarios based on them - merely in establishing the bases of the matter.

E



pahunkboy -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 2:52:46 PM)

In short- they want to monetize this "problem".

When in fact - we have no money.

Did we not just send trillions to the banks?

So why would it make sense to monetize it.

Then there is the WMD argument.  If we do not act by midnight we all will die.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 3:01:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

1) Keeling made measurements of CO2 levels in the atmosphere over several decades that showed the levels increasing, year on year. His son now continues his work with the same results.

2a) CO2 acts as an insulator - it is a "greenhouse gas", preventing heat from the sun escaping the atmosphere; this can be easily demonstrated with a glass tube filled with CO2, a candle and a camera. 
2b) Venus provides us with an example of greenhouse gas effects with an atmosphere made up of such gases that results in it being so hot that probes sent to land there last less than five minutes before being critically damaged by the high temperatures.

3) The global population has increased from around 1 billion in 1800, (a level it took 10,000 years to reach) to around 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1964, 4 billion in 1978, 5 billion in 1990, 6 billion in 2000 - a fantastic rate of growth and rate of increase in growth in the last two centuries or so that are projected to increase/ accelerate further in the next decades.

4) People need food and water and shelter; the massive increase in people has led to massive incursion into wilderness areas with consequent loss of species and so damage to the eco-system which we rely on for our food and water which we may not yet have fully realised. Further, this incursion has replaced wilderness that either locked up or absorbed vast amounts of CO2 with agricultural activity far less effective in this regard.

5a) Accompanying, driving as well as supporting the massive increase in population has been enormous industrial growth almost exclusively reliant on methods that result in CO2 emissions.
5b) And accompanying that industrial growth has been in many parts of the world an enormous rise in living standards that is also almost exclusively reliant on methods that result in CO2 emissions. At work and at home and travelling between the two, CO2 emissions are produced to support us.

Do the climate change sceptics dispute any of these facts of the case as presented, in whole or in part?

We are not interested at this stage in interpretations of the facts or projected scenarios based on them - merely in establishing the bases of the matter.

E


The glaring omission is any credible historical evidence that links CO2 to temperature increases. In fact in history CO2 emission increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around. That is a fact, not an interpretation.



LadyEllen -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 3:07:20 PM)

If we cannot answer as to whether we agree what the bases are then we cannot expect any progress on coming to conclusions arising from them.

E



pahunkboy -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 3:08:17 PM)

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/16/nyt_reporter_david_rivkin_on_the  Lady E.  this is prety much where it stands.



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 3:09:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The glaring omission is any credible historical evidence that links CO2 to temperature increases. In fact in history CO2 emission increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around. That is a fact, not an interpretation.


That's a short-sighted interpretation of how records are built up over time in the first place.

Does the increased CO2 content get absorbed into the ice sample straight away: you say yes I say no.



pahunkboy -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 3:10:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

That's a short-sighted interpretation of how records are built up over time in the first place.

Does the increased CO2 content get absorbed into the ice sample straight away: you say yes I say no.



and you then say monetize the problem and send the queen all your money.



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 3:17:18 PM)

Yeah well I've tried building sea defences by paying people in daisies but it turns out they prefer money.[8|]



willbeurdaddy -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 3:28:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

If we cannot answer as to whether we agree what the bases are then we cannot expect any progress on coming to conclusions arising from them.

E


And I am pointing out that you are leaving out an important base..no correlation between CO2 omissions rising and temperatures rising.



LadyEllen -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 3:58:50 PM)

No, you are adding something not found in the original premises given. The initial idea here is to establish basics that can be agreed upon before proceeding to other information which may be contested.

E



starshineowned -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 4:18:09 PM)

Greetings..

I agree we cause an imbalance by our presence here.. however, I think this climate business just isn't going to go anywhere when you can't even convince humans to stop wasting basic resources for their comforts of life.

Stopping now because I need to start that dishwasher so I can have my one favorite glass to use for supper tonight..j/k

starshine



vincentML -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 4:39:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The glaring omission is any credible historical evidence that links CO2 to temperature increases. In fact in history CO2 emission increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around. That is a fact, not an interpretation.


That's a short-sighted interpretation of how records are built up over time in the first place.

Does the increased CO2 content get absorbed into the ice sample straight away: you say yes I say no.


OMG, by what basis do you make that statement? The ice cores segments are crushed and the air bubbles are extracted for analysis. The CO2 content is measured as part of the air content. What makes you think the CO2 would behave differently from the other gases?

Vincent



pahunkboy -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 4:44:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

Yeah well I've tried building sea defences by paying people in daisies but it turns out they prefer money.[8|]


We have NO MONEY.    None.   Only via tax payers do the banks have any money.

You have no clue as to how costly this is.

And the way I now feel - I might even crank my heat up higher.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 4:50:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

No, you are adding something not found in the original premises given. The initial idea here is to establish basics that can be agreed upon before proceeding to other information which may be contested.

E


I see. So only basics that support AGW count. Taking lessons from Magic Mystery on how to set up a "fair" discussion I see. Correlation between warming and CO2 is a basic issue (in fact it is the single most important basic issue), that you dont want to include it as such just proves that you arent interested in a fair discussion at all.



FirmhandKY -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 4:50:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/16/nyt_reporter_david_rivkin_on_the  Lady E.  this is prety much where it stands.


Bad url.

Firm



vincentML -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 5:14:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

If we cannot answer as to whether we agree what the bases are then we cannot expect any progress on coming to conclusions arising from them.

E

You present us with a porridge of grains and nuts in a bowl and ask us whether we have a basis for agreement on each of them. The fallacy is that we should agree or disagree on them in toto and assume some cause and effect relationship between what appear to be your principle nuts - increase in atmospheric CO2 and population growth. There may be correlation but correlation does not vouch cause and effect. There may be a third or fourth factor at play. For example, maybe the benign climate created an abundance of agriculture and optimism that encouraged a population growth.

Seems to me you are stacking the deck with a list of statements and asking us to make forced choice on them and if we cannot agree they are all correct then we cannot proceed to a solution.

I can agree that all nine players on an American baseball team are individually superb at their game. Does not mean they will be superior as a team.

Will brought up a crucial point which you blew off because it is not on your list. How can I put this in a gentle, gentlemanly, respectful fashion? Ah, perhaps this will do it. There is no one person who can dictate the terms of the AGW debate. No offense intended. Debate requires contestants who are open to other possibilities.

Perhaps you would do us the favor to state your main premise and then open the discussion for debate on that issue rather than try to triumph at the beginning by overwhelming us with a set of issues that we may think are unrelated. [:)]

Vincent



FirmhandKY -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 5:21:55 PM)

Bravo, Vincent

Firm



luckydawg -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 7:34:08 PM)

2a isn't wrong, but it is not a valid model of our atmosphere. There are many other factors operating in a dymanic system. Any attempt to draw conculsions about the behavior of the earth from a test tube is pretty worthless.

I believe the thoery of crystaline spheres surrounding the Earth, on which the stars are painted was disproven hundreds of years ago...

But you are right, the lives of billions of people depend on our modern economy, which as you point basically runs on things which emitt CO2.



LadyEllen -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 9:14:27 PM)

I am perfectly open to other facts being established - but for us to have a basis from which to proceed they should be undisputed and indisputable. Once we have them established is the time to start bringing in other facts that may be disputed or disputable.

I am not convinced in any way, shape or form that global warming, man made or otherwise, is taking place and therefore equally unconvinced that long lasting and catastrophic climate change is threatened. But neither am I convinced that the contrary in each and every respect is the case. I am convinced however that if there is a reasonable chance that the former is the case rather than the latter then we would be stupid not to be trying to do something about it.

What I am aiming for is a mature debate on firm premises without the need to throw faeces at each other, which is what these threads usually deteriorate into within a few posts.

E



LadyEllen -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 9:16:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

2a isn't wrong, but it is not a valid model of our atmosphere. There are many other factors operating in a dymanic system. Any attempt to draw conculsions about the behavior of the earth from a test tube is pretty worthless.



this is an interesting point - when I watched the demonstration it occurred to me that what it demonstrated was that CO2 blocks heat; therefore one might presume that CO2 in the atmosphere might just as well block heat coming in as it might block heat escaping the Earth

E



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125