|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
Quote:
People just need to stop thinking that Humans causing Global Warming is a fact, in which, it is not. There are plenty of variables out there and they only want to focus on the human aspect because a) it's one they can make money off of through fear and b) makes us think there is something we can do about the problem..
Precisely.
Without the public belief that both aspects are true, there is no industry.
If the public doesn't believe it is caused by man -AND- that there is something we can do, there is nothing to sell.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
For example, the average for all marine surface sites in 2010 was roughly 388 ppm of CO2, + or - 0.57 ppm. That means that almost every single measurement from around the world was in the range of 387.4 - 388.6 ppm.
No what it means is that 10 may have been 1ppm and 10 may have been 776 +/- averaging out to 388. Granted that's extreme but that's how averages are figured, and I'm sure you already know that and maybe your wording was off a little.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
I think the +\- .57 ppm is the position of the error bars Florida. Meaning that out of all the recordings reported, the highest was .57 greater than the total mean, and the lowest was .57 less than the mean.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
But what about 9,099 of the last 10,500 years being warmer than what we have now? Can't be because of man. Can't be because of machine.
Could it be, simply, that the earth cools and warms on its own? Nah - that would be too simple, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
But logically speaking, the possibility still stands that there is no CO2 link and the correlation that CO2 levels are higher along with temps are higher are pure coincidence. Just as one can say that there is still a possibility that a murder could occur now without a knife as well..
That possibility does exist. My analogy was probably stupid (as my analogies usually are) but my point wasn't that this is a hardcore scientific fact (if such a thing exists). It was that you can't discount it as a hoax just b/c there was warming in the past that seems to be independent of CO2. All that says is that their are more variables than CO2. Theories are sliding scales of "evidence-based truth," not an either or of absolute fact or insidious hoax.
We have ideas about many ways to increase the global temperature. Large changes in volcanic activity, changes in solar activity, greenhouse enhanced warming, etc. Based on current measurements and knowledge, we have a correlation with increased CO2 levels. These other things don't correlate as well. Those increases of CO2 correspond with fossil fuel burning through equations for combustion that have been known since the start of the industrial revolution. We also have physical models that predict how much that much more CO2 would increase temperature. Experimental measurements of temperature are consistent with the models. Prp's link earlier actually does a good job providing the relevant references for all this, even though the authors of the site distort the scientific conclusions to fit their idea that it "debunks" the theory.
Maybe the increase in temp is due to some as yet undiscovered geological process. Or maybe it is due to a faulty model for the amount of cooling dust particles in the atmosphere. But we cannot make models off of these. Science does not make theories out of the as yet unknown. In a nutshell, the current data is consistent with CO2 linked global warming. That doesn't mean future data won't disprove this. But every year that passes with more data consistent with this theory, the theory becomes more relevant.
Quote:
One can also say that in 1900 there were only 1.25 billion people on Earth and in 2011 there will be 7 Billion people... and global temperature has risen so therefore, people are causing Global Warming.
Only if there is a logical physical, chemical, or geologic model that can explain why humans cause the temperature to increase. In the case of CO2, there is physics, chemistry and geology that can predict these effects. Prpl linked to a site that supposedly debunked these models, but if you look deep enough into the site, the models actually do a pretty good job of predicting the effects of CO2.
Quote:
People just need to stop thinking that Humans causing Global Warming is a fact, in which, it is not. There are plenty of variables out there and they only want to focus on the human aspect because a) it's one they can make money off of through fear and b) makes us think there is something we can do about the problem..
People also need to stop dismissing it as a hoax. This is a theory with a strong basis in physical, chemical, and geologic models; as well as with experimental evidence that supports it. CO2 is not the only variable, but it does seem to be an important one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
It was the standard deviation. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that. What Draftdayz said is right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
What was the time period measured by that .57 ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
But what about 9,099 of the last 10,500 years being warmer than what we have now? Can't be because of man. Can't be because of machine.
Could it be, simply, that the earth cools and warms on its own? Nah - that would be too simple, wouldn't it?
I would offer some caution about that data. First, it is from a particular ice core in Greenland, and is thus not a global data set. Second, the authors provided no error bars, so we cannot evaluate the significance of the temperatures. For example, if the measurements extrapolated to 3343 were plus or minus 2 degrees, then statistically, we cannot differentiate b/w the "minoan warming period" and the "little ice age." Third, that graph ends 95 years before 2000, or 1905. This cuts off the majority of the current warming period. How can we compare the current warming period if it isn't even included?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
The data is updated monthly. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.htmlThat number is the average monthly global CO2 concentration plus or minus 0.57 ppm each month, meaning that measurements from around the world differ by less than 1 ppm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
So that's current "in-the-air" CO2 concentration ?
I was thinking it was from these cores they drill out,...that's why I was asking about the time frame.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Sorry, it's not ice core data. It's 386.63 ppm for the mean CO2 concentration in air about 3400 ft above sea level across the world, plus or minus 0.57 ppm, for September 2010. They delay results by a few months to make sure they have all the data from around the world, and the instruments around the world pass quality control checks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
J/C
what's silly in all of this is that whether or not man is having a significant effect on global warming, we need to figure out alternative energies anyway.
at some point, we are going to start tapping out the fossil fuel supplies on the planet. not likely in our lifetimes, but if we feel guilty about saddling our grandchildren with our nation's debt, we should with our nation's potential energy crisis as well.
but, that isn't urgent enough for people to care I guess so they have to use scare tactics instead of rational discussion (on both sides of every issue). ah well.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
what's silly in all of this is that whether or not man is having a significant effect on global warming, we need to figure out alternative energies anyway.
at some point, we are going to start tapping out the fossil fuel supplies on the planet. not likely in our lifetimes, but if we feel guilty about saddling our grandchildren with our nation's debt, we should with our nation's potential energy crisis as well.
but, that isn't urgent enough for people to care I guess so they have to use scare tactics instead of rational discussion (on both sides of every issue). ah well.
100% agree. There are a lot of direct benefits to alternative energies. One, we are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually, as you said. Second, they are likely contributing to global warming, but even if that turns out not to be the case, there are other pollutants associated with burning hydrocarbons that can be locally dangerous.
There are also indirect benefits as well. I would argue that many of our expensive military bases, as well as recent conflicts, are ultimately to ensure stability in regions that are oil rich (both Iraq wars, bases in Saudi Arabia, bases in Kuwait to name a few). Also, our economy is so entwined with oil that oil prices alone have the power dictate the prices of mostly everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
Absolutely. There is no doubt that those are all necessary things, and a sensible energy policy is needed for this country that moves us into the future with a radically reduced dependency on foreign energy sources. No debate on that here at all.
However, to bastardize something that isn't even proven - is, at its very best, just 'educated' guesswork - and use it to sell policy changes, is a total crock. Cap-and-Trade is a prime example. There is absolutely ZERO need for it, it accomplishes nothing except the creation of a new trading market while allowing the Gov't to fine the living snot out of you if you use too many "carbon credits".... all in the name of something that is completely & totally unproven.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
However, to bastardize something that isn't even proven - is, at its very best, just 'educated' guesswork - and use it to sell policy changes, is a total crock. Cap-and-Trade is a prime example. There is absolutely ZERO need for it, it accomplishes nothing except the creation of a new trading market while allowing the Gov't to fine the living snot out of you if you use too many "carbon credits".... all in the name of something that is completely & totally unproven.
I will admit that I don't know the finer points of cap and trade. I won't argue one way or the other on that until I read a bit more on it.
Just to throw this out there as well, I have noticed a lot lately that oil company executives are very vocal about putting a price on carbon and about global warming, be it a tax or a cap and trade system. Doesn't this seem counter to what they would want? If global warming were definitively a hoax, wouldn't this group, above all others, seize upon the hoax to prevent them from having more regulation or more taxes? Maybe I'm missing something.
Last edited by tjs7; 01/04/11 01:19 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
However, to bastardize something that isn't even proven - is, at its very best, just 'educated' guesswork - and use it to sell policy changes, is a total crock. Cap-and-Trade is a prime example. There is absolutely ZERO need for it, it accomplishes nothing except the creation of a new trading market while allowing the Gov't to fine the living snot out of you if you use too many "carbon credits".... all in the name of something that is completely & totally unproven.
I will admit that I don't know the finer points of cap and trade. I won't argue one way or the other on that until I read a bit more on it.
Cap and Trade is a bunch of crock... What it is saying is Factory A can pay Factory B(who pollutes less) money so Factory A can pollute more.. and by pollute I mean emit more CO2...so in the end, there is still the same amount of pollution, it just costs Factory A more, which in turn will pass their costs onto the consumer.. While Factory B splits their money with Middleman AB.
For example... There is a law that you can only have 5 apples(assume apples are useless and you cannot get rid of them by just tossing them out)..
Person A has 7 apples.
Person B has 3 apples.
Person A goes to Middleman AB and tells him he has too many apples. So MiddleMan AB goes out and finds Person B who only has 3 apples.. So Person A pays Middleman AB to send their 2 excess apples to Person B.
There is still 10 apples, but one person is poorer while another is richer for doing nothing but finding someone to hand apples to.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, to bastardize something that isn't even proven - is, at its very best, just 'educated' guesswork - and use it to sell policy changes, is a total crock. Cap-and-Trade is a prime example. There is absolutely ZERO need for it, it accomplishes nothing except the creation of a new trading market while allowing the Gov't to fine the living snot out of you if you use too many "carbon credits".... all in the name of something that is completely & totally unproven.
I will admit that I don't know the finer points of cap and trade. I won't argue one way or the other on that until I read a bit more on it.
Cap and Trade is a bunch of crock... What it is saying is Factory A can pay Factory B(who pollutes less) money so Factory A can pollute more.. and by pollute I mean emit more CO2...so in the end, there is still the same amount of pollution, it just costs Factory A more, which in turn will pass their costs onto the consumer.. While Factory B splits their money with Middleman AB.
For example... There is a law that you can only have 5 apples(assume apples are useless and you cannot get rid of them by just tossing them out)..
Person A has 7 apples.
Person B has 3 apples.
Person A goes to Middleman AB and tells him he has too many apples. So MiddleMan AB goes out and finds Person B who only has 3 apples.. So Person A pays Middleman AB to send their 2 excess apples to Person B.
There is still 10 apples, but one person is poorer while another is richer for doing nothing but finding someone to hand apples to.
Pretty good synopsis.
However, you forgot to mention that in your scenario - the gov't. says "apples are bad for your health, that's why we are limiting apples" - yet in the end, the same amount of apples get consumed, they just cost more.
It doesn't help person A,B,C....Z - it just costs more.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
But what about 9,099 of the last 10,500 years being warmer than what we have now? Can't be because of man. Can't be because of machine.
Could it be, simply, that the earth cools and warms on its own? Nah - that would be too simple, wouldn't it?
I think you meant this as a general reply and not solely directed at me, right? I was putting a context to data that was being misconstrued.
Regardless, the answer to your question is within the first half-dozen sentences of Tj's post right after the one I'm quoting of yours. Couldn't have explained it better myself, so why re-write it?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
Quote:
Just to throw this out there as well, I have noticed a lot lately that oil company executives are very vocal about putting a price on carbon and about global warming, be it a tax or a cap and trade system. Doesn't this seem counter to what they would want? If global warming were definitively a hoax, wouldn't this group, above all others, seize upon the hoax to prevent them from having more regulation or more taxes? Maybe I'm missing something.
1. ALL companies, whether they believe it or not, will at least pretend to believe in whatever is popular... it's called P.R. and marketing.
2. Yes, they have an interest - they have an interest in anything that they will be able to leverage for profits
3. Depending on public opinion at a given time, no, they may not openly seize upon the hoax unless they can absolutely debunk it beyond any doubt. The reason is simple: it is the fox complaining about the lack of chickens in the coop. The obvious built-in bias is a P.R. poison... so their best move is to not be open or vocal until they can absolutely dispell it. The problem for them is the same as for the anthropogenic warming crowd: nobody can actually prove anything.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
And the oil companies would be fools to not have their foot in the door of alternatives already. It's not an "if" it's a "when" it will become the standard.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Just to throw this out there as well, I have noticed a lot lately that oil company executives are very vocal about putting a price on carbon and about global warming, be it a tax or a cap and trade system. Doesn't this seem counter to what they would want? If global warming were definitively a hoax, wouldn't this group, above all others, seize upon the hoax to prevent them from having more regulation or more taxes? Maybe I'm missing something.
The oil companies have done their own studies and .... you'll never guess... they found a lot of contradictory evidence to what global warming says.. but they are oil companies so their motives are always questioned as if the other side is pure and pristine in their motives... 
And prpl is right, companies will ALWAYS go along with what is popular because they don't want the bad PR.... plus the existing energy companies are poised to make even more billions off of the green movement, so in my mind, they probably don't really care which way this goes.... oil and gas, they make a fortune..... wind, solar and electric, they make a fortune....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
The oil companies have done their own studies and .... you'll never guess... they found a lot of contradictory evidence to what global warming says.. but they are oil companies so their motives are always questioned as if the other side is pure and pristine in their motives...
I find it kind of funny and kind of sad that when people with ties to green tech come out with studies about how "bad" global warming is, that they are never questioned..
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
They are questioned.. not by the mainstream media mind you, but they are questioned... then everybody who questions them is accused of having an agenda, being against science, and wanting to recreate the crusades..... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
1. ALL companies, whether they believe it or not, will at least pretend to believe in whatever is popular... it's called P.R. and marketing.
2. Yes, they have an interest - they have an interest in anything that they will be able to leverage for profits
3. Depending on public opinion at a given time, no, they may not openly seize upon the hoax unless they can absolutely debunk it beyond any doubt. The reason is simple: it is the fox complaining about the lack of chickens in the coop. The obvious built-in bias is a P.R. poison... so their best move is to not be open or vocal until they can absolutely dispell it. The problem for them is the same as for the anthropogenic warming crowd: nobody can actually prove anything.
Good points. I was thinking a little naively, as I don't always have the sharpest business mind.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Scientists say to expect more
extreme weather due to Global
Warming
|
|
