Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Fox News Host Claims only "Corrupt Scientists" Believe in Climate Change


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#61 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,872 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:22 PM

I, personally, would be heading north. Possibly towards the coast.

Food source, fresh water, shelter, and seclusion are the things I would look for.

I think typical agriculture would be difficult to depend on, so wild meat and wild plants would be best.

Fish is probably the easiest meat to get without a rifle, and whether I had one or not ammo would be limited, so it would be only used out of necessity.

I think the key would be to live as close to how the natives lived before we got here, rather than trying to lean on modern inventions and stocks.


Explosives for fishing is the way to go .. don't kill anymore than you can process tho .. B)
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#62 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,754 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:24 PM

Explosives for fishing is the way to go .. don't kill anymore than you can process tho .. B)

That works great until you run out of explosives that you had to carry with you where ever you went.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

MirandaKerr.jpg
2 0 1 5 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#63 Mr.DirtyDangles

Mr.DirtyDangles

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,337 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 10

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:26 PM

Yes , yes Fox news the pinnacle of ethical journalism. Better break out the ole hairspray cans and crank my cars AC this year, were all good !

Seriously though man occupies 1% of total land mass and in the last 125 years we have eaten hundreds of millions of buffalo, deer, elk, caribou, cows, moose, sheep, fish(in the quadrillions), chickens(in the trillions). We genetically modify every last consumable, marketable, organic or naturally occurring substances on the earth and deny the fact we have an effect on our ecosystem. ?

That being said I fully agree with Heretic that global warming is mainly a naturally occurring process. We have been measuring temperature semi accurately since 2000? We have no clue what the weather patterns were like 25000, 100000, or even a million years ago. Global warming is real , no denying it but we are not the root cause by any means.

Top 10 causes of greenhouse gas emissions are as follows:

10. Sulfuryl Fluoride: The new kid on the block, MIT scientists identified this chemical as a greenhouse gas on March 11th, 2009. Used as a fumigant, Dow Chemicals produces sulfuryl fluoride to kill termites. The chemical, which is highly inert, has a lifetime of up to 40 years, and traps 4,800 times more heat per molecule than CO2. The chemical only exists in 1.5 parts per trillion in the atmosphere, but according to the recent Journal of Geophysical Research, that number is going up by 5 percent a year.

9. Trichlorofluoromethane: This refrigerant has the dubious honor of contributing to warming on two fronts. Not only does trichlorof luoromethane retain heat 4,600 times better than carbon dioxide, but it also depletes the ozone layer faster than any other refrigerant. The high ozone-depletion rate results from trichlorofluoromethane’s tendency to shed chlorine molecules when struck with ultraviolet light. Chlorine, of course, is also a deadly toxin.

8. Sulfur Hexafluoride: Primarily used in the electronics industry as an insulator, this inert gas moonlights as a tracer for experiments around the wind dispersal of toxic gases during terrorist attacks. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) deemed sulfur hexafluoride the world’s most powerful greenhouse gas, with the chemical weighing in at a stout 22,200 times more heat trapping than CO2.

7. Hexafluoroethane: A chemical used in the creation of semiconductors, hexafluoroethane is the Methuselah of greenhouse gases. While some chemicals linger in the atmosphere for mere decades, hexafluoroethane sticks around for 10,000 years. That longevity, combined with heat retention 9,200 times greater than carbon dioxide, makes hexafluoroethane a chemical the IPCC keeps a close eye on.

6. Trifluoromethane: Trifluoromethane, also called fluoroform, serves two purposes, finding use in the etching of silicon computer chips and as a fire suppressant. By far the most abundant of the hydrofluorocarbons, trifluoromethane has an atmospheric lifetime of 260 years and traps 11,700 times as much heat as carbon dioxide.

5. Ozone: Usually when ozone comes up in the climate debate, the talk centers on a general lack of it. In fact, ozone is also a potent greenhouse gas. But because ozone isn’t equally distributed around the globe, we have simultaneously too much of it (man-made ozone in the lowest part of the atmosphere traps heat and warms the planet), and too little of it (fluorocarbons deplete ozone in the upper atmosphere responsible for shielding the ice caps from solar radiation).

4. Nitrous Oxide: By far the most fast and furious of the greenhouse gases, nitrous finds uses in rocket fuel, making cars more awesome, and as a recreational drug. However, those indulging in huffing and street racing should be aware that laughing gas ranks as the fourth leading cause of the greenhouse effect.

3. Methane: The main component of natural gas and cow farts, methane comes in as the number three worst offending greenhouse gas. The IPCC freely admits that it does not fully understand the methane cycle, and identifies methane release as coming from natural sources like swamps and termites, and from man-made sources like landfills and cow farms.

2. Carbon Dioxide: Despite getting all the press, carbon dioxide only ranks as the second largest contributor to global warming. Let’s reiterate that CO2 is a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels as well as cellular respiration, and carbon dioxide generated by respiration, and carbon dioxide generated by human industry

1. Water Vapor: Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts for 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect.

Edited by vanfan73, 24 January 2013 - 07:00 PM.

  • 1

tumblr_m9hjp8vrqX1reh8b2o1_250.gif

Once, on vacation,  using only a rake and a pair of sunglasses,

I single-handedly defended a small village in Italy from a colony of angry wasps. :ph34r:


#64 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,788 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:35 PM

More crucially, to deal with the effects of anthropogenic global warming effectively, there has to be systematic changes. Government cannot do anything unless the general population understands the cause.


In this case maybe the remedy is the cure.
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#65 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:47 PM

That being said I fully agree with Heretic that global warming is mainly a naturally occurring process. We have been measuring temperature semi accurately since 2000? We have no clue what the weather patterns were like 25000, 100000, or even a million years ago. Global warming is real , no denying it but we are not the root cause by any means.


1) There is no credible evidence suggesting that the current warming is due to natural changes, while there are very solid evidences that the CO2 injected into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuel burning can have a very significant effect on the climate.

2) Most "modern" land based instrumental data sets goes back to pre-1900, and thus we have more than a century of data. Satellites have been providing round the clock temperature data since 1979.

With proxy data (e.g. tree rings/sediments) we have fairly good understanding of the climate history dating back to 10,000's year ago. In particular data from the last glacial maximum period (26500-20000 years ago) was used as a check to see how sensitive the climate is to changes, and it supports that anthropogenic CO2 can cause significant changes to the climate. With ice core proxy we have a sense of what happened over the past 400,000 years.

In fact global temperature estimates starts from 500 million years ago (Note that the time scale on the bottom is nonlinear, so rates of change in the past has been greatly exaggerated):
Posted Image
  • 0

#66 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,872 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:01 PM

That works great until you run out of explosives that you had to carry with you where ever you went.


A little bit of Semtex can go a long way if you are judicious ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#67 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,935 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:09 PM

1) There is no credible evidence suggesting that the current warming is due to natural changes, while there are very solid evidences that the CO2 injected into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuel burning can have a very significant effect on the climate.

2) Most "modern" land based instrumental data sets goes back to pre-1900, and thus we have more than a century of data. Satellites have been providing round the clock temperature data since 1979.

With proxy data (e.g. tree rings/sediments) we have fairly good understanding of the climate history dating back to 10,000's year ago. In particular data from the last glacial maximum period (26500-20000 years ago) was used as a check to see how sensitive the climate is to changes, and it supports that anthropogenic CO2 can cause significant changes to the climate. With ice core proxy we have a sense of what happened over the past 400,000 years.

In fact global temperature estimates starts from 500 million years ago (Note that the time scale on the bottom is nonlinear, so rates of change in the past has been greatly exaggerated):
Posted Image


But there have been climate changes in the past - right?

http://myweb.wwu.edu...ns-climate.html

This one in particular is an interesting read:

http://myweb.wwu.edu...atic-cycles.pdf

"The global warming experienced during the past century pales into
insignificance when compared to the magnitude of the profound climate
reversals over the past 15,000 years."
  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#68 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,782 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:31 PM

I'd mention the climategate emails that were hacked where scientists were found to be starting with a conclusion and skewing the data to support it, but then someone will turn around and say that those scientists were all vindicated in some hearing, at some place and at some point, which determined that they were just 'horsing around' or something like that.

So we'll just move on.
  • 0

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#69 nucklehead

nucklehead

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,501 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:48 PM

Hahahaha, 'believe' in.

Next they'll be debating about gravity!

So you're saying you buy the official story on gravity?
  • 0
biggerabacus_zps5cae10b6.jpg

I got kicked out of the slut walk for trying to bid on the participants.

-BananaMash

#70 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,997 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:21 PM

So you're saying you buy the official story on gravity?


I'm pretty sure the center of the Earth is where God hid his celestial fridge magnet.
  • 1
Posted Image

#71 Mr.DirtyDangles

Mr.DirtyDangles

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,337 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 10

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:25 PM

1) There is no credible evidence suggesting that the current warming is due to natural changes, while there are very solid evidences that the CO2 injected into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuel burning can have a very significant effect on the climate.

2) Most "modern" land based instrumental data sets goes back to pre-1900, and thus we have more than a century of data. Satellites have been providing round the clock temperature data since 1979.

With proxy data (e.g. tree rings/sediments) we have fairly good understanding of the climate history dating back to 10,000's year ago. In particular data from the last glacial maximum period (26500-20000 years ago) was used as a check to see how sensitive the climate is to changes, and it supports that anthropogenic CO2 can cause significant changes to the climate. With ice core proxy we have a sense of what happened over the past 400,000 years.

In fact global temperature estimates starts from 500 million years ago (Note that the time scale on the bottom is nonlinear, so rates of change in the past has been greatly exaggerated):



All weather instruments worldwide have been recalibrated since 2000. Wind chill, actual degrees and humidity have all been adjusted. So technically we have been taking more accurate readings since 2000. There is no way a computer genrated model can predict or infer accurate temeratures from 400,000 let alone 1 million years ago. The sun for one and it's cycle have the most to do with global climate and it's affects on our entire ecosystem.

I canot and will not deny global warming is a direct result of man but mountians of data suggest other wise. Im almost 40 and have noticed an incredible change in the years I have been alive.
  • 0

tumblr_m9hjp8vrqX1reh8b2o1_250.gif

Once, on vacation,  using only a rake and a pair of sunglasses,

I single-handedly defended a small village in Italy from a colony of angry wasps. :ph34r:


#72 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:26 PM

But there have been climate changes in the past - right?

http://myweb.wwu.edu...ns-climate.html

This one in particular is an interesting read:

http://myweb.wwu.edu...atic-cycles.pdf

"The global warming experienced during the past century pales into
insignificance when compared to the magnitude of the profound climate
reversals over the past 15,000 years."


Sure climate has changed in the past, but that doesn't logically imply human cannot change climate. So what's your point?

Don Easterbrook is a geologist, and he's not the most reliable source for information on climate. What you've linked to is a long read and will take some time to take apart, but I'll address the section that is most relevant to the sentence you've quoted.

His assertion is based largely on this graph of greenland ice-core:


While local data can give you a glimpse into the global climate, you have to remember that it is a local record, and thus any swing, particularly in the arctic, is going to be amplified. Going from glacial to interglacial (i.e. right to left of the graph), the temperature at greenland (top of greenland to be precise) increased by 20 degrees. That sounds dramatic, but if you look at the temperature around the world (see this review paper), the global change over the same period is around 4-5 degrees.

Several times he mixed up local and global temperatures (unacceptable whether intentional or not). He spent some time emphasizing the wild swings around 12,000 years ago (labeled 2,3,6,7), and presented it as a global event, which is not true. If you refer back to the paper I linked to, the Younger Dryas is mostly a local event affecting north atlantic. The global cooling was ~0.6 degrees.

I will leave it up to you to decide why he won't show you the global picture.

Bottom line: Globally the change from glacial to interglacial (e.g. present) is about 5 degrees over a timescale of 10,000 years, where huge ice-sheets disappeared. We are expected to increase the global temperature by the same amount in a couple of centuries.


Another place where he made a major mistake is in Fig 24:
Posted Image

He claimed that the past 10,000 years in greenland has been warmer than present.

What he didn't realize is that in the convention used in ice-core is that "present" is in fact 1885. You can add in (requires a bit of extrapolation explained here) the actual present temperature, and it looks like this:
Posted Image


As estimation of the temperature increase from 1855 to 2009 is about 1.44 degrees, which place the current temperature at the grey line. Clearly doesn't support his claim that the past 10,000 year is mostly warmer then present. (Original blog entry). I don't have the projections handy, but if greenland warms at twice the rate as the global temp like polar regions, that's possibly 8 degrees in 100 years. It goes far above this graph.

Aside: He in fact went out of his way to remove the present temperature in a graph used for presentation. See here and here.

Here's a nice quote from Richard Alley, a geologist who actually knows what he's talking about

Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.



p.s. Anyone knows how I can resize images?

Edited by MadMonk, 24 January 2013 - 11:39 PM.

  • 0

#73 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:38 PM

All weather instruments worldwide have been recalibrated since 2000. Wind chill, actual degrees and humidity have all been adjusted. So technically we have been taking more accurate readings since 2000.


Do you have a source for your assertion that instruments have been re-calibrated?

There is no way a computer genrated model can predict or infer accurate temeratures from 400,000 let alone 1 million years ago.

I fail to see your point. The failure is not because we don't understand the climate system enough. The issue is that we don't have enough data on relevant factors for a sensible simulation to be carried out.


The sun for one and it's cycle have the most to do with global climate and it's affects on our entire ecosystem.

That's also an assertion not supported by the current science.


I canot and will not deny global warming is a direct result of man but mountians of data suggest other wise. Im almost 40 and have noticed an incredible change in the years I have been alive.

Can you provide some examples? I'll be interested in taking a look.
  • 0

#74 Mr.DirtyDangles

Mr.DirtyDangles

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,337 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 10

Posted 25 January 2013 - 12:18 AM

Do you have a source for your assertion that instruments have been re-calibrated?

Environment Canada issued a statement claiming the actual world readings for the temp scale in regards to cooling were off, by how much I have no clue. The American military has re adjusted the GPS satellites to compensate for this variance. I will try to find this data.


I fail to see your point. The failure is not because we don't understand the climate system enough. The issue is that we don't have enough data on relevant factors for a sensible simulation to be carried out.

^^^Exactly my point here. Dare I say we could be wrong on our predictions on data we have compiled over the last 100years. It is such a small sample that geologists cannot make any concrete claims in regards to what the earths actual climate could have been 10,000-500,000 or even a million years ago. 2000 years I can wrap my head around but farther than that so many variables can change the outcome.



That's also an assertion not supported by the current science.

There is plenty of data to create a new hypothesis. Nasa solar observatory info is excellent

Solar variation is the change in the amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and in its spectral distribution over years to millennia. These variations have periodic components, the main one being the approximately 11-year solar cycle (or sunspot cycle). The changes also have aperiodic fluctuations. In recent decades, solar activity has been measured by satellites, while before it was estimated using 'proxy' variables. Scientists studying climate change are interested in understanding the effects of variations in the total and spectral solar irradiance on Earth and its climate.

Solar variation, together with volcanic activity are hypothesized to have contributed to climate change


Can you provide some examples? I'll be interested in taking a look.

The examples are literally everywhere you choose to look. Just as there are many examples to support the theory of man being the major contributing factor to climate change. Really to me it is a matter of perspective on the entire matter. Man technically has created the industries that spew theses toxins into the atmosphere and we can only gauge the measurable affects as they appear. From that we can begin to extrapolate the evidence.


Edited by vanfan73, 25 January 2013 - 12:28 AM.

  • 0

tumblr_m9hjp8vrqX1reh8b2o1_250.gif

Once, on vacation,  using only a rake and a pair of sunglasses,

I single-handedly defended a small village in Italy from a colony of angry wasps. :ph34r:


#75 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 25 January 2013 - 01:00 AM

Double post

Edited by MadMonk, 25 January 2013 - 01:15 AM.

  • 0

#76 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 25 January 2013 - 01:10 AM

Exactly my point here. Dare I say we could be wrong on our predictions on data we have compiled over the last 100years. It is such a small sample that geologists cannot make any concrete claims in regards to what the earths actual climate could have been 10,000-500,000 or even a million years ago. 2000 years I can wrap my head around but farther than that so many variables can change the outcome.


1) Predictions are based largely on physical laws that are tested independently of the temperature data. In fact human emission of CO2 can significantly warm the planet was first investigated more then a century ago, long before there was evidence that CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere.

2) You don't actually need temperature per se to make predictions. What you need are "forcings", the main ones as how bright the sun is, whether there were large volcanic eruptions, and how much CO2 you have in the atmosphere. Temperature record simply allow us to check to see if the climate models are going what they are supposed to.

3) The best estimation for the warming expected from a doubling of CO2 is 2-4.5 degrees. If you use the available data from the past (i.e. pre-instrumentation period), it gives you a similar range.

Regarding solar, it actually has been studied in detail, but the conclusion is that there is no evidence that it is played a significant role in the current climate change. More specifically, the brightness of the sun has in fact decreased slightly, meaning without the extra CO2 the earth would've cooled.

In the wiki article that you've cited, the full sentence in fact reads "Solar variation, together with volcanic activity are hypothesized to have contributed to climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. However, changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change.[11]"
  • 0

#77 Mr.DirtyDangles

Mr.DirtyDangles

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,337 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 10

Posted 25 January 2013 - 03:51 AM

@MadMonk


..as I read your posts i find myself researching what I consider very technical stuff in regards to what is really basic/intermediate physics and thermodynamics. I am not skeptical rather sponging up info as this is a serious matter to all living things..... I do have some theories of my own. Bare with me as I am no scholar :unsure:

If we consider insolation/irradiance in regards to solar energy, I am wondering if global warming is not a direct result of the reflection of that irradiance? Obviously with less of an arctic/antarctic ice sheet there will be more absorption, solar radiation is converted to thermal energy and you get an obvious increase in the objects (Earth's) temperature.

What if we couple that with the the internal energy of Earth and maybe the relationship with our core or the heat and work of our planet ? This dynamic may not be as understood as we think ? What if that relationship actually plays a much larger role in the heating and cooling of the planet ? Maybe to the point where we are actually warming up from the inside out ? Yes I now everything flows from a high to a low but what if our absorption is greater then our reflection were we are basically being slightly micro-waved ?

I am also considering a different affect with the chemicals we are dropping on/into the surface of the Earth as well as into the atmosphere. In relation to all our industrious ways, these residual particles, elements, by products if you will could be causing greater absorption. I am sure there is evidence out there to support this.

This is why I struggle to come to grips with the debate ..IF we agree that we are coexisting in this shared ecosystem of the Earth, that we directly impact this giant living breathing energy producing/consuming system form top to bottom form the inside out........ would not the equilibrium of all these systems dictate that there really is no global warming rather a natural ebb and flow ? Law of Zeroth states that if two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other. This leads me to believe the systems will eventually balance themselves out.

Odly enough that could explain nature getting all nasty on us to "cool down" the system if you will. Sounds retarded i know...but science doesn't lie. The presented evidence suggest that equilibrium will prevail. There will be highs and lows dependent on the situation/ingredients at hand.

Edited by vanfan73, 25 January 2013 - 06:13 AM.

  • 0

tumblr_m9hjp8vrqX1reh8b2o1_250.gif

Once, on vacation,  using only a rake and a pair of sunglasses,

I single-handedly defended a small village in Italy from a colony of angry wasps. :ph34r:


#78 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,935 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:03 AM

Sure climate has changed in the past, but that doesn't logically imply human cannot change climate. So what's your point?



I never said humans cannot change climate.
I think my first post in this thread says that.

My point was, there have been climate changes in the past without the assistance of humans.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#79 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:08 AM

If we consider insolation/irradiance in regards to solar energy, I am wondering if global warming is not a direct result of the reflection of that irradiance? Obviously with less of an arctic/antarctic ice sheet there will be more absorption, solar radiation is converted to thermal energy and you get an obvious increase in the objects (Earth's) temperature.


What you are describing here is called the ice-albedo feedback.

In climate there are forcings and feedbacks. The former refers to things that are controlled externally to the system: solar is the main one, volcano is another example. Feedback refer to things that can't be controlled externally, and it basically increases or decreases depending on the temperature, and it stays roughly in an equilibrium with the environment: water and ice sheets are feedbacks. CO2 is a special case. In the past it is a feedback, but now as we are injecting it into the atmosphere at a rate much higher then it can equilibrate, so it is a forcing.

The mechanism you are suggesting is a run away feedback: less ice less to more warming, more warming leads to less ice. If that were possible then the earth will either be ice-free or covered in ice most of the time. From climate records that is clearly not the case, and the record suggests that it responds to solar forcing.

Most importantly, the serious decline of ice extend only started in the past decade. Prior to that the magnitude of the effect is small relative to CO2.

What if we couple that with the the internal energy of Earth and maybe the relationship with our core or the heat and work of our planet ? This dynamic may not be as understood as we think ? What if that relationship actually plays a much larger role in the heating and cooling of the planet ? Maybe to the point where we are actually warming up from the inside out ?



This is also highly unlikely.


The direct warming effect of increase in CO2 to date is about 1.7 W/m2. The current heat flux from the inner core to the surface is a paltry 0.09 W/M2.



I am also considering a different affect with the chemicals we are dropping on/into the surface of the Earth as well as into the atmosphere. In relation to all our industrious ways, these residual particles, elements, by products if you will could be causing greater absorption. I am sure there is evidence out there to support this.


It's called CO2 ;)

This is why I struggle to come to grips with the debate ..IF we agree that we are coexisting in this shared ecosystem of the Earth, that we directly impact this giant living breathing energy producing/consuming system form top to bottom form the inside out........ would not the equilibrium of all these systems dictate that there really is no global warming rather a natural ebb and flow ? Law of Zeroth states that if two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other. This leads me to believe the systems will eventually balance themselves out.



Odly enough that could explain nature getting all nasty on us to "cool down" the system if you will. Sounds retarded i know...but science doesn't lie. The presented evidence suggest that equilibrium will prevail. There will be highs and lows dependent on the situation/ingredients at hand.


If you want to get philosophical then sure, I guess Homo sapien are indeed part of nature so you can argue that this is all natural change. But you won't poop around the house just because it is natural, right?

Yes, nature will equilibrate, but the counter intuitive fact is that warming is nature's way to equilibrate.
  • 0

#80 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:11 AM

[/size]
My point was, there have been climate changes in the past without the assistance of humans.


But that's irrelevant to the current change!

Edited by MadMonk, 25 January 2013 - 08:12 AM.

  • 0

#81 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,676 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:32 AM

"The good thing about science is it is true whether you believe in it or not." - NDT

Edited by Hobble, 25 January 2013 - 08:33 AM.

  • 0

#82 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,935 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:41 AM

But that's irrelevant to the current change!


Says who? You?

Mankind is irrelevant compared to the age of this planet.

So what, are you saying this "current" change is solely caused by mankind?
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#83 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:34 AM

Says who? You?

Mankind is irrelevant compared to the age of this planet.

So what, are you saying this "current" change is solely caused by mankind?


It is irrelevant because it is illogical.

In a trial you are deciding if company X is responsible for the collapse of building A, does the fact that company X was not responsible for collapse of building B have any bearing?

In the trial of James Holmes, is the fact that he was not responsible for the Columbine shooting relevant?

BP wasn't involved in the Exxon Valdez spill, is that relevant in deciding whether BP is responsible for the Deepwater horizon spill?

Along the same line, the fact that human was not responsible for past climate change in the past is irrelevant in assessing the role of human activity for the current warming.

What you need to do is to analyze the current natural and human contribution to the warming to decide how much of a role human has.

The evidence all suggest that the role of human is dominant.
  • 0

#84 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:34 AM

Says who? You?

Mankind is irrelevant compared to the age of this planet.

So what, are you saying this "current" change is solely caused by mankind?


This "current" cycle...at least as long as humanity HAS been living on this planet..IS directly effected by humanity, if not "caused" by it. Humanity certainly has played a major role in the depletion of natural resources, for sure.
  • 1
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#85 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,935 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 25 January 2013 - 10:00 AM

It is irrelevant because it is illogical.

In a trial you are deciding if company X is responsible for the collapse of building A, does the fact that company X was not responsible for collapse of building B have any bearing?

In the trial of James Holmes, is the fact that he was not responsible for the Columbine shooting relevant?

BP wasn't involved in the Exxon Valdez spill, is that relevant in deciding whether BP is responsible for the Deepwater horizon spill?

Along the same line, the fact that human was not responsible for past climate change in the past is irrelevant in assessing the role of human activity for the current warming.

What you need to do is to analyze the current natural and human contribution to the warming to decide how much of a role human has.

The evidence all suggest that the role of human is dominant.


It doesn't matter who was responsible - all that matters (as far as a court goes) is what you can prove.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#86 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 25 January 2013 - 10:11 AM

It doesn't matter who was responsible - all that matters (as far as a court goes) is what you can prove.


Well I hate to say this but in an Environmental Court, Humanity would be found guilty of destroying the ecosystem and negatively affecting the climate change cycle.
  • 2
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#87 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,997 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 25 January 2013 - 10:24 AM

Arguing about whether or not climate change is man-made or not is a monumental waste of time. How about instead everyone acknowledge that we pollute the Earth with substances that don't just change long-term weather patterns, but directly destroy species that are relied upon for other types of life to survive. Indicator species have been revealing huge issues on a molecular scale for decades now and since those issues have not been resolved, larger animals are being affected due to our apathetic attitude towards these problems (our favorite whale, the Orca for example: http://www.pac.dfo-m...icology-eng.htm ).
  • 0
Posted Image

#88 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,542 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 25 January 2013 - 10:32 AM

Well I hate to say this but in an Environmental Court, Humanity would be found guilty of destroying the ecosystem and negatively affecting the climate change cycle.

Yup Except Heretic, he doesn't affect the climate he is too busy burying his head in the sand to leave a carbon footprint.
  • 0
Posted Image

#89 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 25 January 2013 - 11:35 AM

It doesn't matter who was responsible - all that matters (as far as a court goes) is what you can prove.


To prove something you need relevant facts. I explained in post 83 why "climate has changed before humans" is a fact irrelevant to what we want to prove, do you agree? if not, why?

Edited by MadMonk, 25 January 2013 - 11:42 AM.

  • 0

#90 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,935 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 25 January 2013 - 11:54 AM

To prove something you need relevant facts. I explained in post 83 why "climate has changed before humans" is a fact irrelevant to what we want to prove, do you agree? if not, why?


I agree but what is it we really want to prove?
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.