"Global Warming" or "Interesting Debate On Munk" - Page 12

Geminex · 03-09-2010, 07:19 AM

I'm guessing the rest of the world is absolute in their stance, because they perceive it as an urgent matter of survival, which it quite possibly is. And your argument that "we can't know" is... interesting.

But see, I really can't think of any way that CO2 could have gotten into the air other than by human influence. There aren't all that huge amounts of free CO2 in depots or reservoirs. I doubt that it came from the earth itself. Definitely not volcanoes, we're doing quite a lot of monitoring there, and we probably would've noticed that. Besides, Unless it's extremely active, no volcano could come even close to the amount of gasses we put into the air.
I'm not definite. But I can say that there's a very high probability that the source of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses appears to be humanity. Also cows, but they're just there to feed the humans.

As for this:

Quote:

But that's only the data for that one spot on Earth.

I guess that's an argument you could make. Though it does sound rather desperate. Yes, climate is a hugely complex business, and we can't even predict the weather with exactitude, let along analyze the exact impact of certain atmospheric gasses. But the physics behind global warming really aren't that complex. Solar radiation gets bounced back to earth when it tries to leave the atmosphere. Of course there's factors we don't know about, that we can't predict, that might even change the final outcome. But we really need to look at "what is most likely?" here, and not take a stance that amounts to "unless we can be 120% sure, the status quo remains".

Sifright · 03-09-2010, 07:54 AM

Holy crap thadius do you really have no fucking idea about the scale of human endeavors is that really going to be your argument? Your comment about possibly thinking your stance could wrong putting you on a high horse is hilarious but lets ignore that for now and focus on why your argument of scale is ridiculous.

"WE CANT POSSIBLY BE DOING THIS BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE."

Except guess what humans regular effect things on a huge scale because we have something you seem to take for granted which nothing else on this planet has ever had called technology which allows us to do things like blow the top of an entire mountain or smaller things like drive to work at 100 miles per hour. now to give you some actual info on the kind of scale things humans do.

We as a race consume 170 BILLION liters of crude oil a year or to put that another way we consume a volume of crude oil each year of about 170,640,000 cubic metres or to put that into a figure that is more easily visualized size 68,256, Olympic size swimming pools.

"I mean, yeah, you have to fuck up the atmosphere something fierce to affect fucking Antarctica, I admit that as well. Who said it was us though? What about, oh, I dunno, volcanic eruptions? What if the earth itself put that carbon up there?!"

Lolwhat? we outpaced carbon emissions from volcanoes quite a while ago I've seen this argument bandied about a few years ago and it was as limp dicked of an argument then as it is now.

As for complaints about whether we put the co2 there it's ridiculous that you think it matters as it's all about equilibrium and how we are upsetting that by putting out more than can be absorbed but for whats it's worth YES the co2 is there because of us if you need the information read this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-matter.html

Long story short.

"How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14." Small excerpt from said article.

Edit: so it turns out my numbers for crude were off we use far more than I claimed. in a year we use twenty two billion barrels of crude or 3,449,250,000,000 litres of crude oil or 3,449,250,000 cubic metres or 3.4 cubic kilometres So yea it's clearly not something that could possibly effect the world nooooo >.>

Mondt · 03-09-2010, 07:59 AM

This thread is primarily both sides who have gone to websites that support their idea for support, getting mixed information that sometimes doesn't even relate that much to AGW.

Woohoo!

And Gem, the argument that I know of isn't that we aren't emitting CO2, it's that we went from a fraction of a percent to a slightly larger fraction of a percent of CO2 in the atmosphere and should be fairly negligable.

Just from what I understand. We didn't get a lot of actually good presentations in my IB Group 4 discussion last year. Just lots of Pro and Anti bullshit. *shrug*

Sifright · 03-09-2010, 10:23 AM

Mondt we give out 4.8% of total co2 emissions a year that is an enormous amount and is what is throwing things out of whack. there is a limit to what can be absorbed by plant life and the ocean and we surpassed it quite some time ago which is why Co2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. I don't know where you have heard the claim that it's a fraction of a percent but it's bullshit.

Sithdarth · 03-09-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

But that's only the data for that one spot on Earth.

Actually because of how the atmosphere works Antarctica is a dumping ground for basically everything that ever gets in the atmosphere. Remember the Ozone Layer hole? It was over Antarctica for a reason and that reason wasn't billions of people using refrigerators in Antarctica. We also know from studies today that generally speaking the atmosphere is generally well mixed. There are natural variations but nothing really drastic.

Now as for other sources of climate data they are more localized than Antarctic ice in terms of the data they capture. They make up for this by being all over the world. There are probably at least 100s of different sites from all over the world that have been studied. Complaining about the data being restricted to only those points is like complaining you can't predict the weather with only a barometer and a wind gage. Obviously you can predict the weather with only those things and some scientific knowledge. Maybe you can't predict it as certainly or with as much advanced warning as you can with satellites but people did a damn good job of it for centuries. Similarly having a weather satellite in orbit stretching back into history would be great but you really don't need it to get an idea about what the climate was doing.

Quote:

And Gem, the argument that I know of isn't that we aren't emitting CO2, it's that we went from a fraction of a percent to a slightly larger fraction of a percent of CO2 in the atmosphere and should be fairly negligable.

Except at this point its obviously not to anyone that takes a look at the poles. It was actually obvious a long time ago to scientist but that includes looking at some complex data.

Mirai Gen · 03-09-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thadius

Let me try this once more.

Normally? I'd be content with sitting by. Really. I'd like for it to be proven one way or the other, that way I won't have to speak out and risk looking like an idiot.

However, since this issue has gone on for too long as is...

No I will not be sated with samples from a tree's rings or ice from Antarctica. I mean, yeah, that's good data and all, showing that when you put X amount of carbon into the air, you get Y amount of temperature increase. I admit that!

But that's only the data for that one spot on Earth.

I mean, yeah, you have to fuck up the atmosphere something fierce to affect fucking Antarctica, I admit that as well. Who said it was us though? What about, oh, I dunno, volcanic eruptions? What if the earth itself put that carbon up there?!

The best and most implausible way to be certain [madboy]would be to master time itself, release a satellite into orbit around the Earth, and have it gather the data for you of all of Earth's past[/madboy].

Barring that?

I'll wait it out. Whoever wins? Someone loses.

And yes, I am willing to admit that I could be wrong on my 'chosen' stance. Which I think puts me above...

Oh! Just about the entire rest of the world in this debate!

God bless you Thaddius.

"HAHAHAAHHHAHA! Obviously, everyone is freaking out for no reason, and you're all so ridiculous in thinking that humans can actually have an effect on the Earth's climate. I'm just going to sit back and relax so that way if the world's just fine in ten years, I can be smugly arrogant to everyone who wanted to play it safe with the survival of our species!

But I fully well admit I could be wrong!"

Professor Smarmiarty · 03-09-2010, 12:37 PM

There is a reason I bailed on this debate on like page 2- came back in to check and yep, still as ridiculous as back then.

Green Spanner · 03-09-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

There is a reason I bailed on this debate on like page 2- came back in to check and yep, still as ridiculous as back then.

There's just something about debate in subjects like global warming...

It's like the breeding call of the crazies.

Sifright · 03-09-2010, 01:07 PM

might be because there is very little left to debate?

Professor Smarmiarty · 03-09-2010, 01:23 PM

Its the flat earth society of the new millenia. Though maybe that is TimeCube.

03-09-2010, 07:54 AM	#112
Sifright Fact sphere is the most handsome Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,108	Holy crap thadius do you really have no fucking idea about the scale of human endeavors is that really going to be your argument? Your comment about possibly thinking your stance could wrong putting you on a high horse is hilarious but lets ignore that for now and focus on why your argument of scale is ridiculous. "WE CANT POSSIBLY BE DOING THIS BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE." Except guess what humans regular effect things on a huge scale because we have something you seem to take for granted which nothing else on this planet has ever had called technology which allows us to do things like blow the top of an entire mountain or smaller things like drive to work at 100 miles per hour. now to give you some actual info on the kind of scale things humans do. We as a race consume 170 BILLION liters of crude oil a year or to put that another way we consume a volume of crude oil each year of about 170,640,000 cubic metres or to put that into a figure that is more easily visualized size 68,256, Olympic size swimming pools. "I mean, yeah, you have to fuck up the atmosphere something fierce to affect fucking Antarctica, I admit that as well. Who said it was us though? What about, oh, I dunno, volcanic eruptions? What if the earth itself put that carbon up there?!" Lolwhat? we outpaced carbon emissions from volcanoes quite a while ago I've seen this argument bandied about a few years ago and it was as limp dicked of an argument then as it is now. As for complaints about whether we put the co2 there it's ridiculous that you think it matters as it's all about equilibrium and how we are upsetting that by putting out more than can be absorbed but for whats it's worth YES the co2 is there because of us if you need the information read this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-matter.html Long story short. "How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14." Small excerpt from said article. Edit: so it turns out my numbers for crude were off we use far more than I claimed. in a year we use twenty two billion barrels of crude or 3,449,250,000,000 litres of crude oil or 3,449,250,000 cubic metres or 3.4 cubic kilometres So yea it's clearly not something that could possibly effect the world nooooo >.> Last edited by Sifright; 03-09-2010 at 10:20 AM.

03-09-2010, 10:23 AM	#114
Sifright Fact sphere is the most handsome Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,108	Mondt we give out 4.8% of total co2 emissions a year that is an enormous amount and is what is throwing things out of whack. there is a limit to what can be absorbed by plant life and the ocean and we surpassed it quite some time ago which is why Co2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. I don't know where you have heard the claim that it's a fraction of a percent but it's bullshit.

03-09-2010, 12:37 PM	#117
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	There is a reason I bailed on this debate on like page 2- came back in to check and yep, still as ridiculous as back then.

03-09-2010, 01:07 PM	#119
Sifright Fact sphere is the most handsome Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,108	might be because there is very little left to debate?

03-09-2010, 01:23 PM	#120
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	Its the flat earth society of the new millenia. Though maybe that is TimeCube.