The Warring States of NPF - "Global Warming" or "Interesting Debate On Munk"

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- Bullshit Mountain (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - "Global Warming" or "Interesting Debate On Munk" (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=37411)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibian

Climate change is happening. The trick is, it has always been happening, long before we started influencing our surroundings.

And that's the basic problem with these types of discussions. When people speak of "climate change", it is almost always implied to mean "man-made climate change", and almost as often "it's bad".

This is your first post and I have to say I concede this point. The global climate has changed pretty drastically over the history of the world. But it hasn't shifted as suddenly as it has in the last fifty to one hundred years since man started doing stuff.

Blues is right in saying "It's not that we're all gonna get a little bit hotter and have to start investing in sunblock. It's that because the temperature of the entire earth is increasing, many plants and animals who require a cooler temperature to grow, will die. And the animals that ate those as food will thin out - and even though humans can survive because we can effectively change and manipulate our surroundings with things like air conditioners and junk, we'll be negatively affected as our food sources die, trees begin to wither and water begins to disappear."

Quote:

But is this warming man-made? Carbon dioxide has been rising since the time of James Watt (1736 � 1819), inventor of the auto-controlled steam engine that helped jump-start the industrial revolution. Since then, coal, oil and natural gas have powered our economies. Hydro-power and nuclear power are comparatively minor contributors to energy needs (excepting certain countries such as Norway and France).

Today the amount of carbon dumped globally into the atmosphere corresponds, on average, to one ton per person on the planet, each year. In the United States, carbon-based energy is especially important. The average American per capita emission is 5 tons of carbon annually. In Sweden (with a similar standard of living as the US) the carbon output is less than two tons of carbon per person per year.

James Tyndall (Courtesy: NASA)
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas � it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth. The physics of this process was established by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 � 1891) and the effect was calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 � 1927).

Yes, I agree that climate changes on the earth and has been changing for millions of years. Longer than we've been here. But that doesn't change the fact that since we've been here, it has spiked more in a shorter period than those changes previous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibian

Historically speaking, we have been going through cycles of roughly 90000 years of cold and 10000 years of warmth in 100000 year cycles. These are not exact numbers, they can and do vary by hundreds or thousands of years, and we don't know what causes them to start or end. So far as i know there is no way to know if we should be in one had we not done anything, but the possibility that we could be exists (again, provided the global warming people are correct).

Basically, if we are having an impact then reversing that impact could be quite risky and potentially devastating. And if we don't, trying to reverse it is money out the window.

For reference, my dad is an archaeologist and knowing this sort of thing is part of his job. I have been leaning about it my entire life.

Like I said, we're pretty sure we're changing something because of the way temperature's been spiking since we started polluting the planet. There are risks to not doing things, as I've said previously.

And also? My dad's a psychiatrist. Does that mean I can argue competently about psychiatric medicine? No - it means my dad can. I have to read up, broaden my horizons and learn about things before I talk. By the way - what makes your dad, one man - less corrupt/more plausible then, say any previous scientists or organizations listed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Ib

If you would care to read my posts, i have already more or less stated my position. An ice age, which is what could happen provided the global warming people are right, would be much worse than the current worst realistic projections as things stand. It's not a matter of "is this happening?" for me, because the question is irrelevant. We do not want to reverse what effects we have had, if any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian

The hypothesis goes that we have warmed up the planet. Some people want to cool it back down. Cool it down too much - this could simply be to the levels it had before we did anything of consequence - and anyone who has studied the planets history knows what could happen.

The implications are what they are. It's not my theory, i'm just working with what i'm given.

The global temperature is increasing. In order for there to be an ice age, the global temperature needs to decrease. You're saying that if we do something about climate change now, we might over-shoot and cause an ice age. It depends on what we do, how we do it and when we do it. As for "Anyone who has studied [Earth's] history," I'm guessing your dad? Because you're not listing any sources from anything here, and your argument is basically "We shouldn't try to do anything about this because our solution might work too well, and the temperature of the Earth would decrease to the point of a new Ice Age.

Climate change was a well accepted theory before it became painfully politicized. Which would have been...somewhat early in my first degree?

And I have to admit, I'm tired of listening to both sides, because they're both being kind of fundamentalist due to...well...for the same reason this thread reads the way it does, but times a million, over the course of 5 years.

Am I saying pollution by mankind doesn't exist? Fuck no, I'd be a moron to say that we've kept the seas pure and the skies clean.

Am I saying that better energy sources would be a bad thing? Again, no I'm not. Hell, everything is going to run out eventually. Basic entropy there, NOTHING will last forever.

But to claim that we're causing climate change on an epic scale, big enough to destroy life on the planet as we know it, or even our way of living?

...I guess we'll see now won't we? But I still stand fast that we're giving ourselves too much credit.

What I'd like to do (Or rather the madboy part of me) is somehow set up two planets. One exactly like ours, and one without the means to pollute their world as epically as we did. Hell even a whole string of planets that scale down and up with varying factors would be ideal! But again, madboy talking.

I'm pretty sure "commandeering entire planets for the scientific method" falls somewhere under "too large an ego for our own good".

Well I wouldn't use planets with life on them! That'd just be inhumane! And clearly I couldn't see the end of the experiment, it'd take eons!

...Unless I figured out time-travel...

Aw great. Now my train of thought has derailed, caught on fire, exploded, and any survivors are taking shelter elsewhere.

Seriously guys, this was pretty much scientific fact since the late 70s. It's only become "iffy" since the oil companies starting buying off scientists recentely. We are not giving ourselvees too much credit- the rate of change of temperature since our industrialisation is unheard of,as is our production of greenhouse gases.My favourite argument is the old- we don't know what greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will do-but we do because the earth already has a greenhouse effect-we are just enhancing it.

Fun Fact: Calling people idiots is a great way to influence their beliefs!

(I mean I know I've called hypothetical people idiots, but none of you fine upstanding trolls! If you can't agree but you know you're right, then just be right, what the fuck do you get out of insulting someone directly? Or at least go the whole nine and call someone a cocksucker, I want to see some fireworks.)

EDIT: Started watching the video, and man that Munk fellow is one scary old motherfucker, even though its a video I feel like I need to sit down and shut up until he's done talking.

Quote:

(I mean I know I've called hypothetical people idiots, but none of you fine upstanding trolls! If you can't agree but you know you're right, then just be right, what the fuck do you get out of insulting someone directly? Or at least go the whole nine and call someone a cocksucker, I want to see some fireworks.)

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thadius (Post 1022579)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants (Post 1022605)

Pretty much this, Thad. We're pumping literal TONS of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every day. And the atmosphere isn't that big. This may not be wholly accurate, but bear with me. Get a globe. Got it? Does it have some sort of lacquer on it? That's the atmosphere.

Now consider that places in China produced so much smog until recently that the sun wasn't even visible. That's from the particle emissions, but with particle emissions come greenhouse gas emissions. It's all from burning fossil fuel.

You have to also consider that it's not just a new thing. We've been doing this for years. Many years. The effect has been building over a long period of time and has recently spiked, looking in the period since the Industrial Revolution. And it's continuing to climb as more nations industrialize.

People seem to think of global warming as an immediate and extreme problem, when it isn't. It's a very gradual change made over many years that only now is coming to a point of no return. We don't need to fix it now so much as begin to reverse course and make changes. It's not a quick fix kind of problem. It's going to take a long time to reverse, but we're both at the point where we need to start and have the technology where we can.

This is really the ultimate opportunity for us. The cards have all been dealt and they're all in our favor. But with big business acting as the house, they don't want us to because it'll dent their profits. The question is really whether we want to play our cards, reap the benefits, cash out, and invest for the future of all or if we want to let the house win, take the money, and run, long-term be damned.

There's no point, Blues.

Global warming doesn't exist.

If it does exist then we're obviously not doing anything wrong.

It's far better to just be totally ignorant, plug your fingers in your ear, and recite utterly limp-wristed unresearched bullshit that lets you be smugly self-righteous in the future, because that's more important than the possible continuation of the human species.

If it isn't relevant degrees and FOREIGN WHORES!!!, then it's a possible self-induced Ice Age or natural climate change we have nothing to do with, because CO2 doesn't exist and greenhouse gases are just lies made up by the government.