42 replies to this topic

[Karlis]

www.sciencecodex.com said:

Harvard scientists are helping to paint the fullest picture yet of how a handful of factors, particularly world-wide increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, combined to end the last ice age approximately 20,000 to 10,000 years ago.-- While the research strengthens the link between CO2 and the Ice Ages, Shakun believes it also reinforces the importance of addressing CO2-driven climate change in our own time. Read more...

[questionmark]

Yeh, well, all knew it except big coal and big oil. They still claim that carbon has nothing to do with it and that humans are not responsible for the increase of carbon in the atmosphere...

[and then]

questionmark, on 05 April 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Yeh, well, all knew it except big coal and big oil. They still claim that carbon has nothing to do with it and that humans are not responsible for the increase of carbon in the atmosphere...

We have no other real alternatives that can meet the current needs we have demanded.  Solar, wind and bio cannot meet them.  Nuclear will never be accepted on the scale it would be needed.  Carbon fuels are all we have and we will have to choose comfort, growth and overall lifestyle being seriously diminished or accepting the ravages that carbon causes.  My guess is that we will do nothing until it is forced on us by a calamity.  It's just human nature.

[questionmark]

and then, on 05 April 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

We have no other real alternatives that can meet the current needs we have demanded.  Solar, wind and bio cannot meet them.  Nuclear will never be accepted on the scale it would be needed.  Carbon fuels are all we have and we will have to choose comfort, growth and overall lifestyle being seriously diminished or accepting the ravages that carbon causes.  My guess is that we will do nothing until it is forced on us by a calamity.  It's just human nature.

I don't remember anybody saying to stop dead on using fossil fuels, all Kyoto and similar initiatives demanded is to reduce where it is not necessary, like invest in insulation, not drive 400 yards with the car to get a pack of cigarettes and there were possible substitute for regenerative energies. Not to heat up the interior to 105 in winter and cool it down to 20 in summer. But even that seems to be too much for some.

[Alienated Being]

questionmark, on 05 April 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Yeh, well, all knew it except big coal and big oil. They still claim that carbon has nothing to do with it and that humans are not responsible for the increase of carbon in the atmosphere...

I would agree with man-made global warming if the world hadn't gone through warming/cooling periods in the past...

[questionmark]

Alienated Being, on 05 April 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

I would agree with man-made global warming if the world hadn't gone through warming/cooling periods in the past...

I have asked you this a dozen times and a dozen times you have avoided answering: Who is blowing all the carbon sequestered by nature in the carboniferous (very hot) era back into the atmosphere?

[JayMark]

Alienated Being, on 05 April 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

I would agree with man-made global warming if the world hadn't gone through warming/cooling periods in the past...

I have adressed that to you as well.

Understanding the causes of past climate changes helps to understand the diffrence with today.

So I would like to ask you now: what would then be the major cause of global warming if it isn't us?

[Alienated Being]

questionmark, on 05 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

I have asked you this a dozen times and a dozen times you have avoided answering: Who is blowing all the carbon sequestered by nature in the carboniferous (very hot) era back into the atmosphere?

You have not asked me a "dozen" times; twice, maybe. I do believe I had gotten busy, and forgotten about the topic completely. Way to exaggerate.

Secondly, the earth cooled, and went into an ice age. After the ice age, it began warming again. According to Vostok data, our temperatures really haven't increased very substantially.



CO2 emissions may have increased, but that doesn't indicate that it is the cause of our warming.

Edited by Alienated Being, 05 April 2012 - 05:06 PM.

[questionmark]

Alienated Being, on 05 April 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

You have not asked me a "dozen" times; twice, maybe. I do believe I had gotten busy, and forgotten about the topic completely. Way to exaggerate.

Secondly, the earth cooled, and went into an ice age. After the ice age, it began warming again. According to Vostok data, our temperatures really haven't increased very substantially.



CO2 emissions may have increased, but that doesn't indicate that it is the cause of our warming.

So, let me ask you: Did you read that article above? And that still makes you claim that carbon has nothing to do with it?

[Alienated Being]

questionmark, on 05 April 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

So, let me ask you: Did you read that article above? And that still makes you claim that carbon has nothing to do with it?

Yes, absolutely; especially considering that they have not provided any data to further substantiate their claims.

[questionmark]

Alienated Being, on 05 April 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

Yes, absolutely; especially considering that they have not provided any data to further substantiate their claims.

Ah, of the "No worse deaf than those who refuse to hear" variety. Nice to know. Makes further discussions unnecessary.

[Alienated Being]

questionmark, on 05 April 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Ah, of the "No worse deaf than those who refuse to hear" variety. Nice to know. Makes further discussions unnecessary.

Sorry, but I prefer detailed models that represent datas, not reports on findings. They can report all they wish, but if they have no data to reinforce their findings, then it pretty much equates to nothing.

[questionmark]

Alienated Being, on 05 April 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

Sorry, but I prefer detailed models that represent datas, not reports on findings. They can report all they wish, but if they have no data to reinforce their findings, then it pretty much equates to nothing.

Where you would have to go and see the actual study, which you could have seen by picking up today's Nature, instead you start claiming something about no data. That leads only to one of two possibilities:

1. You have not read the above, if you would have you would know that it is a comment on the findings at Harvard published in today's Nature and far away from being a scientific paper wit "data".
2. That you really do not care and prefer to claim your prejudices as fact before finding the actual study.

[OverSword]

questionmark, on 05 April 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

So, let me ask you: Did you read that article above? And that still makes you claim that carbon has nothing to do with it?

I think my reply to that question would be that there was an earlier study that indicated that warming occurs followed by a rise in c02, and now this new study claims the exact opposite.  Should we believe whichever study comes last like a game of tag in the backyard between children, or just assume that there is no definitive proven answer, and trust that our climate has always been changing?  Maybe we have a large effect, maybe a small.  Regadless, we do have an effect and better more efficient "green" ways of producing and using energy are and will always be desirable.

To latch on to this or any study, given how this whole thing has gone over the years, and say "SEE THIS PROVES IT ONCE AND FOR ALL" is just......  

[questionmark]

OverSword, on 05 April 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

I think my reply to that question would be that there was an earlier study that indicated that warming occurs followed by a rise in c02, and now this new study claims the exact opposite.  Should we believe whichever study comes last like a game of tag in the backyard between children, or just assume that there is no definitive proven answer, and trust that our climate has always been changing?  Maybe we have a large effect, maybe a small.  Regadless, we do have an effect and better more efficient "green" ways of producing and using energy are and will always be desirable.

To latch on to this or any study, given how this whole thing has gone over the years, and say "SEE THIS PROVES IT ONCE AND FOR ALL" is just......  

Taken in isolation that would be the correct argument, but that article is not unique. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (which means that it stops heat from radiating back into space), we know that in times when all the carbon that is (was) safely tucked somewhere under the earth was out in the air the temperatures on this planet were way higher and by paleontological record much more extreme. We know that since all that carbon was sequestered the temperatures on this planet have been more moderate (to sometimes right out freezing). The only real variable in all the cases was carbon. So why would anybody suppose that if you blow all that sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere nothing would happen to the climate?

That is the real question here.