-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Global cooling!
- Thread starter ilikeboobs
- Start date
Werbung:
why you'd want a climatologist in a group debating climate science? Hmmm, that's a hard one...
Well, I suppose we could read the opinions of non climatologists, and simply say this.
ilikeboobs
Well-Known Member
While I agree that the input of a climatologist would be helpful, I don't think the UN's IPCC is made up of 100% climatologists. In fact, there are a lot of people on that panel that aren't even scientists...creepy.
The Heartland Institute appears to be made up of 100% non climatologists, and nearly 100% non scientists.
It's called relevant expertise. It's quite useful.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Useful, but not necessary. Rejecting information based on nothing more than where it came from or the author's qualifications constitutes a logical fallacy known as circumstantial ad hominem. Information is either correct, or incorrect without regard to who wrote it or who published it. If you can prove the information wrong, then you have an argument to make. If you claim it is wrong on the basis of "relavent expertise" then all you have is a fallacious argument.
So which part of the material can you prove wrong?
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Actually, humanity doesn't produce enough CO2 in any given year to overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 producing machinery. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is primaraly due to warming oceans. Warm water can't hold nearly as much CO2 as cold water. This, in large part explains the 600 to 1000 year lag between warming and increased atmospheric CO2. The warming began long before the increased CO2 was present in the atmosphere.
I wasn't saying that you can't prove something wrong without the qualification deemed appropriate, I'm just responding to the comment 'Why would we want one'. There's only one reason why, and thats because of the expertise they hold.
Good point. That's true enough.
It's too bad we've been producing carbon dioxide for a lot of years so far, isn't it? Were it just one year, then we wouldn't be seeing the climate changes that are occurring currently.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
We don't live in a static system where the CO2 produced in any given year simply remains in the atmosphere and accumulates year after year.
As I said, we don't make enough CO2 to even overcome the natural deviation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery. That is, we don't make enough CO2 to have an effect.
CO2 is a minor "greenhouse" gas. All of it combined contributes almost 2% to the total greenhouse effect and we don't even make enough to overcome the natural deviation from year to year.
This is what our contribution to the "greenhouse" gasses looks like.
By the way. Did you know that none of the computer simulations that predict climate change take water vapor into their calculations because of the computer power that would be required? They also don't take the sun into their calculations for the same reason. Exactly why would you place confidence in computer simulations that don't take the two major (by far) contributors to the global climate into consideration?
We don't live in a static system where the CO2 produced in any given year simply remains in the atmosphere and accumulates year after year.
As I said, we don't make enough CO2 to even overcome the natural deviation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery. That is, we don't make enough CO2 to have an effect.
CO2 is a minor "greenhouse" gas. All of it combined contributes almost 2% to the total greenhouse effect and we don't even make enough to overcome the natural deviation from year to year.
This is what our contribution to the "greenhouse" gasses looks like.
By the way. Did you know that none of the computer simulations that predict climate change take water vapor into their calculations because of the computer power that would be required? They also don't take the sun into their calculations for the same reason. Exactly why would you place confidence in computer simulations that don't take the two major (by far) contributors to the global climate into consideration?
So, does that mean that you think the increase in carbon dioxide since humankind began burning fossil fuels is natural?
Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, that's a good point. It also increases as the temperature increases, making it not only a cause, but also an effect of global warming. Methane, also, increases as the temperature increases, becoming yet again a cause and an effect of global climate change.
The oceans absorb a lot of carbon dioxide, which makes the water slightly more acidic, which in turn discourages the growth of organisms that rely on calcium carbonate for shells, which in turn, increases the levels of carbon in the oceans. As the oceans warm, they are less able to absorb carbon dioxide. Yet again, the cause becomes the effect.
Humans don't cause all of the climate change we're seeing. Some of it is, indeed, natural. Some of it is caused by feedback loops, in which the cause becomes also the effect. It is a complex system.
Is human activity not a factor in global climate change? I think we'd have a difficult time proving that. Is it the only factor? No, definitely not. Can we reverse climate change by cutting back on our "carbon footprint"? No, probably not. Are there people exploiting global climate change fears in order to promote an agenda? Most definitely. I hear ads all the time, interestingly enough, often on the same radio station that tells us that climate change is a "liberal myth", for energy efficient widgets that we'd better buy if we don't want the Earth to become a desert.
Not that it really matters. Our response to global climate change will be what it has always been, to run in circles, point fingers of blame, and deny plain facts. Maybe I'd better add to that, try to make as much money as possible out of others' fears.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
So far, science has not succeeded in proving that we have had an effect on climate change, much less proving that we haven't.
The chart that I provided clearly shows mankind's contribution to "greenhouse" gasses. As you can see, we don't even make enough to overcome the natural deviation. In short, we have no power to effect climate change. We are along for the ride, nothing more.
Can you see that there is a conflict between the above two paragraphs?
Werbung:
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
What you seem not to grasp is how small we are in relation to the world. How small all of mankind is in relation to the world. Did you look at the chart that I provided? The numbers are accurate. For all of our comings and goings and doings, we contribute a grand total of 0.117% to the total atmospheric CO2 on earth. Barely one tenth of one percent and that is it. Do you really believe that the earth's systems are so finely balanced that a change of less than one tenth of one percent is going to cause a change? The natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year is as much as 3%. We contribute one tenth of one percent. With regard to CO2, we produce a very, very, very small fraction of a very, very small fraction.Give those numbers some serious thought.
Look at the rest. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor and our contribution is 0.001%. Methane, our total contribution is 0.066%. Nitrogen, our contribution is 0.047% and all of the rest combined, we contribute 0.047 to the total.
You hold much to great an opinion of yourself and mankind 9sublime. You believe that we are bigger than we are. You look at our millions of factories and cars and houses etc. and compare them to yourself. Personally. To you, they are large beyond measure. But that is because you don't grasp how large the earth is. The total output of all of our millions of factories, and cars, and houses and everything else we do amounts to less than one third of one percent of the total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. We aren't even important enough to register in the grand scheme of the earth.
Maybe you should take a bit of time to get a grasp of how large the earth really is and really look at what less than one third of one percent actually means.
If you are the sort who has to worry about something in order to define yourself, then at least worry about something that you might have an effect on. The climate, alas, isn't it.
