Back to something relative on-topic, looky here!Actually, topic in this thread is civilization, not AGW. Though I still see lots of evidence for getting warmer, and very little for the cause of why it's getting warmer. Too many times times they go "see this proves it's getting warmer, we say it's because of humans" but they don't show anything to prove it's humans. The only exception I've seen, is some graph that shows the "hockey stick" of greenhouse gases which frankly, I question the accuracy of those reports, because we are useing different measurement methods for the past, then they use for today.
Still not on topic though.
Oh my bad, my article about how big corporations are backing a misinformation campaign that is directly a result of their knowing how unsustainable our model of civilization is...not on topic in a thread about how sustainable our model of civilization is...
Your kook theories about physics and geology that don't hold up to the most cursory study of those fields, and could be explained away by a bright 8th grader who didn't sleep in class..TOTALLY ON TOPIC, YO!
Careful, according to Sissyl it's not cool to tell people their information is wrong.
Careful, according to Sissyl it's not cool to tell people their information is wrong.
If I hadn't been in a forgiving mood I probably would have gotten this thread locked with a string of foul mockery for all the differently-abled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I may not have been on topic, but I never claimed it was on topic either. At least be honest about going off topic, though granted a statement about big corps backing research could be on topic, though given that the article was actually about AGW, it didn't really seem like that was your point.
So you say you like logic, though your understanding of logic seems to be confined to the categorical syllogism, so here's one for you:
If A-This thread is a thread about the sustainability of our current model of civilization.
And B-If anthropogenic global warming is true, it would hinder our civilization sustainability.
Then C-Therefore the truth of the matter of global warning is on topic.
Wait for it...
Also, Killing Joke rules.
Question: Do you like Night Time?I ask because a friend of mine is a huge KJ fan, but can't stand Night Time for reasons well articulated but far too numerous to enumerate here. Night Time and Killing Joke are my two favorite KJ albums.
|
2, even if the scientists were correct, then why would distance from us have any bearing on the speed of the galaxies? They would be simply getting faster, and if all realtime, then how is it those closest to us are the slowest? Are we somehow the center of the universe again?
Inflate a balloon so that it is vaguely spherical and then draw three dots on it with a marker. Place two of the dots near each other and the third on the opposite side. Now inflate the balloon some more and note what happens to the dots.
The two dots near each other will both move away from the center of the balloon by roughly the same amount... but since the vectors from the center of the balloon to the dots are nearly identical the increase in distance between these two dots will be relatively small. Meanwhile, the dot on the opposite side will have also moved the same distance from the center of the balloon, but since this is in the opposite direction it will have moved roughly double that distance from the other two dots.
From this we can see that nearby points move apart more slowly than far separated points... precisely as with the expanding universe. No need for the Earth to be in the center for this phenomena to occur. Indeed, if the Earth WERE in the center then all other points would be moving away from it at the same speed.
|
|
Though I still see lots of evidence for getting warmer, and very little for the cause of why it's getting warmer. Too many times times they go "see this proves it's getting warmer, we say it's because of humans" but they don't show anything to prove it's humans. The only exception I've seen, is some graph that shows the "hockey stick" of greenhouse gases which frankly, I question the accuracy of those reports, because we are useing different measurement methods for the past, then they use for today.
Which part of the attribution of global warming to humans do you dispute?
1: That the atmospheric level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is increasing
2: That humans are responsible for this increase in greenhouse gases
3: That increased atmospheric levels of these gases cause warming
There are multiple indisputable (and hence undisputed by any scientist I know of) lines of evidence for each of these, but I'm not clear on which you think is in question.
|
As I have stated previously, I do not question that the earth is getting warmer, merely that we are helping it along, therefore, points 1 and 3 are not wholly in question as they are natural or can be natural effects, valcanos for example put out a lot of greenhouse gases.
That leaves point 2, though I am sure we do contribute some, I simply question just how much contribute, and their methods used to measure and compare.
I also question the suppossed idea that the earth has more CO2 then ever before. Earlier in the thread on the topic of higher air pressure in the past, someone said large plants in the came from higher CO2 levels. While I disagree that purely increaseing will increase the plant size, I think that if higher CO2 levels actually had that effect, plants and trees should be growing in size and flourishing, not shrinking and dieing, assuming your estimates of current CO2 levels compared to the past is anywhere near accurate.
Thus either higher CO2 doesn't help plants grow (which seems absurd), or current CO2 levels are not as extreme as they are made out to be compared to past occurances of global warming, which should be much warmer then current temperature anyway.
----
Someone here earlier mentioned ice cores for example, as a method to see how much CO2 was in the air in the past, but they then use more direct methods to measure current levels of CO2.
A more picture of the relative CO2 levels between the past and now would be painted if they used the same methods to measure current CO2 as they do past CO2. Doing that eliminates any estimates or guessing about much CO2 actually gets absorbed by the ice vs how much was in the air.
Fewer estimates or guesses, higher accuracy.
I would also to see actual journals, not these publications that are intended for public consumtion. Of course getting actual journals can be difficult.
He thinks they're all in question, because he didn't think of it first.
He's basically said as much. All science is wrong, because it didn't come from his brain.
Since this is the off-topic forums, I can go off-topic, yeah?
Not bad, though I kept having "Kids in America" flashbacks.
Since this is the off-topic forums, I can go off-topic, yeah?Not bad, though I kept having "Kids in America" flashbacks.
While I disagree that purely increaseing will increase the plant size, I think that if higher CO2 levels actually had that effect, plants and trees should be growing in size and flourishing, not shrinking and dieing, assuming your estimates of current CO2 levels compared to the past is anywhere near accurate.
Where are you getting this idea that plants are shrinking and dying? Aside from the obvious, you know, chainsaw related shrinkage.
His own addled mind, I suspect.
While I disagree that purely increaseing will increase the plant size, I think that if higher CO2 levels actually had that effect, plants and trees should be growing in size and flourishing, not shrinking and dieing, assuming your estimates of current CO2 levels compared to the past is anywhere near accurate.Where are you getting this idea that plants are shrinking and dying? Aside from the obvious, you know, chainsaw related shrinkage.
Actually, this one is reasonable. When dinosaurs roamed, CO2 levels were distinctly higher, and there was more carbon in the environment, much of it in the form of biomass that grew significantly larger than it does today. It rotated through the carbon cycle. A metor then disrupted that stable carbon cycle when it killed almost everything off. This resulted in lots of dead biomass not returning to the atmosphere like normal and instead getting burried, where it became today's biofuels. The plants that survived and the new ones that evolved drew much of their carbon from the atmosphere, bringing atmospheric carbon levels down to new lows.
Of course he is forgetting that this process killed off most life on the planet and that almost every plant that now exists has evoled in the current atmosphere that humanity is rapidly changing. He doesn't realize that it takes time for species to evolve, apparently.
But he also, apparently, believes that existing plants and species are actively shrinking and dying due to the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a related note to this thread:
Jose Canseco on gravity
Goblin's do it in public bathrooms.
Damn straight we do.
On a related note to this thread:
Jose Canseco on gravity
OH MY GOD.
DLH is Jose Canseco!|
|
Actually, we know that most of the man made islands in europe from the middle ages were made with trees that would dwarf anything currently in europe. I also had a few long talks with the scientists at the the Biosphere two, where they were doing studies on trees because recently trees around the world have been dying in huge numbers, presumably to disease or ill health, so they were trying to figure out exactly why.
I don't think the CO2 has anything to do with it, I was pointing out how people here have been telling me that the earth has record breaking CO2, and that high CO2 makes plants grow healthy and large. Obviously one of those two statements is false, we have plants dying everywhere (when was the last time you went to a park without lots of dead trees and plants), and they are smaller then a mere 600 - 800 years ago.
I wasn't making a statement about something that was, rather I was pointing out a fallacy between two points presented against me on other topics, points that don't fit together. An excellent example of why scientists should study a little outside their primary field. People forget that everything is tied together, you can't sperate out field of study and ignore all other fields.
|
|
On a related note to this thread:
Jose Canseco on gravity
He forgets that gravity comes from mass, not the core of that mass. Weaker gravity would not be achieved by shifting the core, it would come from either less mass, or another force counteracting gravity, or a change in the laws of physics. Personally I think the second option is most likey, and we all have gone over the reasons against option one, and unless someone here believes that three is possible...then two it must be. So what do you think that countering force is?
I don't think the CO2 has anything to do with it, I was pointing out how people here have been telling me that the earth has record breaking CO2, and that high CO2 makes plants grow healthy and large. Obviously one of those two statements is false, we have plants dying everywhere (when was the last time you went to a park without lots of dead trees and plants), and they are smaller then a mere 600 - 800 years ago.
Seriously, you're blathering pure gibberish.
High CO2 makes plants grow healthy and large ceterus paribus, meaning assuming everything else is equal. We're also still emitting enormous amounts of SO2 which causes acid rain, among other pollutants.
And that's assuming that your assertion is true. Man-made islands in Europe? What the flying fornication are you talking about?!
Actually, we know that most of the man made islands in europe from the middle ages were made with trees that would dwarf anything currently in europe.
Yes. Because PEOPLE CUT DOWN THE DAMNED 400 YEAR OLD OAK TREES. With axes and saws. Oddly enough they were not immediately replaced with 400 year old oak trees. In fact they were replaced with smaller, faster growing species where they weren't turned into farmland.
Dear gods man, how the hell do you parley "people cut down big trees and haven't let them grow back" into some unexplained mystery BeeYooOOOOnd the keEeeEEEeeen of modern SCiiieeeeEEEeence
I was pointing out how people here have been telling me that the earth has record breaking CO2, and that high CO2 makes plants grow healthy and large
Yes, when you crank it up to 1100 ppm, not the 395.55ppm you have now.
I also had a few long talks with the scientists at the the Biosphere two, where they were doing studies on trees because recently trees around the world have been dying in huge numbers, presumably to disease or ill health, so they were trying to figure out exactly why.
Can you cite this, at all? Give me SOME idea what you're talking about?
|
|
...points 1 and 3 are not wholly in question as they are natural or can be natural effects...
This may be some kind of linguistic confusion, but "not wholly in question" would seem to indicate that they are partly in question. Are you disputing that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that will cause warming or not?
...valcanos for example put out a lot of greenhouse gases.
They really really don't. Decaying plant matter, ocean outgassing, and human industry each put out VASTLY more CO2 than volcanoes every year. If we look at the far distant past then sure, volcanoes have been a major player several times. However, for the last several million years nope, they're insignificant.
See Kerrick 2001 & USGS
That leaves point 2, though I am sure we do contribute some, I simply question just how much contribute, and their methods used to measure and compare.
Great. I'll explain how we know that humans are responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 below.
I also question the suppossed idea that the earth has more CO2 then ever before.
No such supposition exists in mainstream climate science. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been higher than current levels several times in the past. Most recently about 2.5 million years ago.
Someone here earlier mentioned ice cores for example, as a method to see how much CO2 was in the air in the past, but they then use more direct methods to measure current levels of CO2.
Actually, the methods of measuring the CO2 content of air in those two cases are the same... only the SOURCE of the air differs. For current measurements they take air from the atmosphere. For the ice cores they take air from bubbles in the ice.
That said, the fact that air in the current atmosphere has ~100 ppm more CO2 than any of the air trapped in ice going back ~800,000 years is actually the least definitive evidence that humans are responsible for the increase.
Doing that eliminates any estimates or guessing about much CO2 actually gets absorbed by the ice vs how much was in the air.
Sorry, I can't follow this. Please explain the process by which you think CO2 surrounded by ice ceases to exist / become unmeasurable.
In any case, let's talk about the real proof(s) that humans are responsible for rising CO2 levels.
My favorite is the basic math approach. Simple logic dictates that the annual atmospheric increase (AtmInc) in CO2 must be equal to human CO2 emissions (HumEm) plus natural CO2 emissions (NatEm) minus CO2 extracted (Ext)... the amount in minus the amount out equals the increase.
AtmInc = HumEm + NatEm - Ext
We also have good measurements of both human emissions (~30 billion tons per year) and the atmospheric increase (~15 billion tons per year). Note that these values show that;
AtmInc (15) < HumEm (30)
Comparing that finding to the previous formula we can determine that 'NatEm - Ext' must yield a negative value (-15 billion tons in fact) and therefor;
Ext > NatEm
That is, the amount of CO2 extracted from the atmosphere by natural sinks each year is greater than the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources... so 100% of natural CO2 emissions and roughly 50% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed each year. Which leaves the remaining 50% of human emissions as the one and only cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Other proofs that humans are responsible for the atmospheric CO2 increase include the fact that atmospheric OXYGEN levels are decreasing in perfect lockstep with the CO2 increases (i.e. the CO2 is coming from oxidized carbon) and that the change in the ratio of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 indicates that the added carbon is coming from fossil fuel sources. See also Revelle 1957 (i.e. 56 years ago) for that last bit.
I would also to see actual journals, not these publications that are intended for public consumtion. Of course getting actual journals can be difficult.
Not really. All of this has been 'settled science' (i.e. only disputed by people with little knowledge of the subject) for decades, so there are dozens of journal articles to choose from.
You didn't say anything about my balloon analogy, so I'll assume you now understand how the increased red-shift with distance indicates an expanding universe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fundamental flaw in you response CBD, is that you didn't cite DLH's research, therefore you can't possibly be right, because no one does science as well as he does.
.
This is the stupidest question ever, because we know 100% the Earth
will one day End -- that is, be destroyed by cosmological process.The answer is, our current model of civilization is 0% sustainable.
How do we survive?? We have to change our civilization to include
space travel.-- Like that one guy said, "If the dinosaurs had a space program, the
would not be extinct." --.
** spoiler omitted **
This is my favorite post in this thread.
.
And that's assuming that your assertion is true. Man-made islands in Europe? What the flying fornication are you talking about?!
This was my question.
The whole thing reminds me of an article by Starlee Kine in the New York Times sunday magazine (too lazy to link, or even find it, sorry) in which she ended up running into a proponent of intelligent design working at the Dinosaur National Park gift shop.
Starlee: "How can you believe that? You work inside a Brontosaurus!"
Gift Shop Cashier: "Actually, this is a Diplodocus, and these beasts were fighting alongside soldiers in armies as late as the 15th century."
Reading that, I was all, "Wow, what an awesome world to live in." I mean, if I want that sort of fun I have to watch LotR or play D&D, but I guess some of live there all the time. :P
Look, I didn't dress it up and say it was too hard to find, I fully admitted it was a matter of my own laziness. :P
That's right, though, it was an Apatosaur, not a Diplodocus; well, at least I got the 15th century bit right. And there I go again, acting all smart, when I can't even explain why babies aren't born with gills.
|
|
And here I thought nothing could top the spinning Earth theory for scientific ignorance. Congratulations for showing why education should be left to professionals. How those measurements and the Doppler effect works is covered in highschool science textbooks Hitomi.
I know they were in my public school ones. They certainly were in my highschool astronomy class and my college astronomy classes.
Here's a starting point. Learn what redshifted steller spectra are and what they mean, then you'll see how your latest nutty idea falls appart.
My intial reply got interupted and I forgot to come back to it so here it is,
I took those classes thank you and we covered those topics and when discussing this with my astromony teacher, he seemed to think I was onto something.
The red shift occurs at two points, first at the source, second at the receiver. The redshift measured is the sum of the redshift from the emission source at the time it was emitted, plus the shift from the receiver at the time is was received.
A galaxy at, say 90 million light years, shows us what it was doing 90 million years ago, while a galaxy at 90 Billion light years, shows us what it was doing 90 Billion years ago. The time difference has a big effect. You can't say that a galaxy is currently moving away from us at a speed when the light being measured is billion of years old.
If a signal is sent to us while moving away at 1000 mps, but then we are moving away from where the signal was sent at only 200 mps when we receive it, the result is a redshift showing 1200 mps speed.
This means the data we collect from galaxies is as old as the light itself. Which means that the farther into the past, the faster things were going away from us. Yes, it is compounded with the fact that they are farther and thus have greater relative speed anyway, but you can't attribute it all to just position and vector, the time play is also there and needs to be accounted for.
@CBDunkerson
I never said the universe isn't expanding. I said the expansion isn't accelerating.
Also, gravity between nearby galaxies would bend their vectors towards each other. This explains why nearby galaxies can be coming closer.
I took those classes thank you and we covered those topics and when discussing this with my astromony teacher, he seemed to think I was onto something.Then he's either an idiot, filling a hole in the teaching roster hes not qualified for, humoring you, or you misunderstood his attempts to not call you an idiot.
Heyyyyy Krensky!
Did you miss the part where he admits to being homeschooled?
I think the rest of your objections to his blatherings are easily explained thereof.
Dear DLH,
For the past couple of pages, I've been trying to figure out what you're getting out of this thread. I mean, sure, I think it's fun to take on a roomful of stooges of the plutocracy, but, although I rarely convince anybody that I am correct, I also don't (usually) provoke page after page of ridicule.
You're obviously free to do whatever you like, and far be it from me to tell you what to do, but I still wonder: how is this fun for you?
|
|
@CBDunkerson
I never said the universe isn't expanding. I said the expansion isn't accelerating.
Alert the Nobel committee, the 2011 physics prize for proving acceleration was awarded in error. :]
If you now understand the expansion of the universe, as your previous comments about red-shifting requiring the Earth to be in the center clearly indicated you did not, then it should be simple to see that measurement of the rate of expansion between dots on opposite sides of the balloon (i.e. galaxies on different sides of the universe) can tell us directly whether the rate is constant or changing over time.
That said, it is difficult to believe you have any interest in really understanding things (as opposed to just believing whatever you want to believe regardless of the evidence) when you routinely ignore the substance of contrary evidence presented to you.
|
|
Dear DLH,
For the past couple of pages, I've been trying to figure out what you're getting out of this thread. I mean, sure, I think it's fun to take on a roomful of stooges of the plutocracy, but, although I rarely convince anybody that I am correct, I also don't (usually) provoke page after page of ridicule.
You're obviously free to do whatever you like, and far be it from me to tell you what to do, but I still wonder: how is this fun for you?
Mostly just responding to things that don't fit, there is plenty of sense in the universe but people are the one source for nonsense. I just point out things when they don't fit other information elsewhere. Sometimes it's just ideas, like with the whole higher atmoshere pressure in the past, or it something that really requires true consideration, such as rebuking the concept that information can go faster then light, when it can't. Nothing can is faster then light.
Granted they like to say that there is all the facts in the world otherwise, but mostly they are suppositions that have yet to be debunked or proven. Mostly people don't consider alternatives when the solution they select hasn't been proven wrong, an interesting aspect of normal people that really helps solidify their boxes (as in the box to think out of)
Ever wonder why ametuars almost always beat college teams at the robot olympics? Because college teams already knew what works and what didn't, but the amatuars didn't know that and thus had to come up with their own solutions.
The "box" is information already known, it becomes a problem when people can't see beyond what they know. Very few ever look for more then one possibility, they find a single, see if it works, if yes then they refine that one idea, if no, then they select another single idea. People also do not innately think beyond a certain point (which is different for different people), these factors together is why most people don't believe new ideas until you fully prove their existing ideas wrong. These factors are also what makes thinking "outside the box" so difficult.
People are wired to find evidence that their ideas and concepts are true, the brain does this automatically. They are not wired to really find the truth, so those who seek truth are fighting themselves to do it, and I don't think many of them really understand what aspect of themselves they are fighting.
Anyway, to answer your question, sometimes I can't resist speaking my mind. Would be nice if people understood what I was saying though, CBDunkerson thinks I think the earth has to be at the center of the universe. How people get these crazy ideas from my words is one thing that really is beyond my understnding.
Well, as long as you're enjoying yourself.
Ever wonder why ametuars almost always beat college teams at the robot olympics?
No, I never have.
Ever wonder why ametuars almost always beat college teams at the robot olympics? Because college teams already knew what works and what didn't, but the amatuars didn't know that and thus had to come up with their own solutions.
I've never heard of the robot olympics, and I tried to google it and found nothing.
I'm picturing something like robot wars/battle bots. In which case, your "amateurs" are professional engineers competing as part of a hobbyist group, and "college teams" are actual students with no practical experience, thus it's quite possible that it's just a misnomer.
DLH, are you familiar with the principle of GIGO-Garbage In, Garbage Out. I understand you want to preserve your intellect as a free-thinking individual untainted by the orthodoxy. But you must understand that without a basic grasp of fundamentals which are not disputed by anyone but the looniest of the loons and easily verifiable, your pet theories are only going to be more and more absurd.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CBDunkerson thinks I think the earth has to be at the center of the universe. How people get these crazy ideas from my words is one thing that really is beyond my understnding.
Oh... allow me to quote someone who may be able to help you understand;
Are we somehow the center of the universe again?
|
|
Ever wonder why ametuars almost always beat college teams at the robot olympics? Because college teams already knew what works and what didn't, but the amatuars didn't know that and thus had to come up with their own solutions.I've never heard of the robot olympics, and I tried to google it and found nothing.
I'm picturing something like robot wars/battle bots. In which case, your "amateurs" are professional engineers competing as part of a hobbyist group, and "college teams" are actual students with no practical experience, thus it's quite possible that it's just a misnomer.
DLH, are you familiar with the principle of GIGO-Garbage In, Garbage Out. I understand you want to preserve your intellect as a free-thinking individual untainted by the orthodoxy. But you must understand that without a basic grasp of fundamentals which are not disputed by anyone but the looniest of the loons and easily verifiable, your pet theories are only going to be more and more absurd.
Actually the robot olympics (I may have the name wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was something like it) was something going on about 10 or so years ago. It was a series of events where teams would build a robot each to complete a specific task in the fastest time or the most accurately, etc I.E climb a rope without touching the rope with wheels or similar. Many of the amatuars were people who built robots in their garage, families and kids took part as much adults.
|
|
CBDunkerson thinks I think the earth has to be at the center of the universe. How people get these crazy ideas from my words is one thing that really is beyond my understnding.Oh... allow me to quote someone who may be able to help you understand;
Are we somehow the center of the universe again?
I believe that was a rhetorical question to demonstrate the idiocy of the previously described concept, that would result in the earth being the center of the universe, but would also be the logical follow up to one of a couple fallacies I was pointing out.