Google accidentally launches Climate Change

[spartaman64]

1) I'm not just talking about current

2) Those estimates presume currently active vulcanism and extrapolate from established activity the activity of unobserved volcanoes, which may not be accurate, even the USGS and European geologists have estimates that differ by as much as 140%

3) That does not include cyclic volcano activity, pinatubo, krakatoa, large scale eruptions over longer periods of time.

 

THe more illustrative history is a bit further back.

 

http://www.futurity.org/big-volcanoes-doubled-co2-level/

 

Atmospheric CO2 skyrocketed to over 4000 PPM and the world survived. It took over a quarter million years for that level to work its way back down, while vulcanism was still accelerated.

 

Although its only a small piece of a far larger mechanism, other greenhouse gases, other thermal transfer avenues, and CO2 release from ocean waters, etc.

 

THe primary problem with AGCC is that for it to be valid both the models need to be accurate and the effect needs to encompass the entirety of the environment. THe problem is the models were not accurate, either in premise or results, the effects were not pervasive, atmospheric changes were nigh non-existent, and daytime temps did not rise like night time temps did, and the radiative solar budget is massively higher than the models allowed for. The "oh God oh God we're all going to die" levels they predicted are BELOW the natural average. We should have burned to a cinder eons ago.

 

CO2 is a problem, but not nearly as big a problem as pollution, poisoning the water and soil, international conflict, resources, over population, deforestation, desertification, etc.

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en

 

 

ftp://ftp.cira.colostate.edu/ftp/Raschke/Book/Kidder/BOOK-CSU/Chapter%2010%20-%20Radiation-Budget/ERBE-Lit/Chen-Sci02-TropCirc.pdf

 

http://eastfire.gmu.edu/Course/EOS759_08/readings/Wielicki2001.pdf

ok so worse case scenario for volcanos 280 million tonnes still not even close.  im not saying that the earth won't survive. the earth will be fine but life is going to get miserable for us if we dont do something. and i would argue that co2 and pollution goes hand in hand and working on reducing one can reduce the other. if scientists say climate change is man made from their experiments what are we to argue otherwise

[HalGameGuru]

ok so worse case scenario for volcanos 280 million tonnes still not even close.  im not saying that the earth won't survive. the earth will be fine but life is going to get miserable for us if we dont do something. and i would argue that co2 and pollution goes hand in hand and working on reducing one can reduce the other. if scientists say climate change is man made from their experiments what are we to argue otherwise

Actually the estimates range from 140-230 MT for USGS and well over 300 MT for the Euro estimates.

 

What experiments? There have been NO experiments. There are MODELS, which seek to predict, but don't, but an experiment would require a faithful reproduction and representation of the world's environment.

 

To say climate change is man-made is to ignore the millions of years of earth's history we believe we have figured out. TO say we are having an impact is well and good, but the results would not be all bad, and its not something that cannot be ameliorated. There are already plans in place that would provide IMMEDIATE and LONG TERM remediation of any "warming" or AGCC, but as long as there is money to be made in beating the war drum no one will push for it.

 

This is another good video:

http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities?language=en

 

DEFINITELY watch the TED talk on desertification, that video by itself really made me amp up my interest, and Kary Mullis' video refers to the two papers I linked.

[spartaman64]

Actually the estimates range from 140-230 MT for USGS and well over 300 MT for the Euro estimates.

 

What experiments? There have been NO experiments. There are MODELS, which seek to predict, but don't, but an experiment would require a faithful reproduction and representation of the world's environment.

 

To say climate change is man-made is to ignore the millions of years of earth's history we believe we have figured out. TO say we are having an impact is well and good, but the results would not be all bad, and its not something that cannot be ameliorated. There are already plans in place that would provide IMMEDIATE and LONG TERM remediation of any "warming" or AGCC, but as long as there is money to be made in beating the war drum no one will push for it.

 

This is another good video:

http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities?language=en

 

DEFINITELY watch the TED talk on desertification, that video by itself really made me amp up my interest, and Kary Mullis' video refers to the two papers I linked.

the models are based on experiments and prediction from those experiments and if they were enough to convince 97% of climate scientists then it is enough for me

[JaeDee884]

A few years back, the local council in my area released flood maps of the suburb I live in.

There is a creek like 600 metres away, what seems like 50 metres lower down or more from where I am.

And they apparently thought that my property is still in danger of flooding....

So what happens when potential new owners notice this information? Of course, property prices will go down.

All because of some damn greenies in the council who don't know what in the hell they're doing.

all of this, my entire town is considered to be a flood zone. with a flood peak of 37m

highest river has ever gotten is 21m and the river only brakes(breaks not sure in this context) its banks at 20.2m. its a fast flowing river so all floods are flash flood style regardless of if its quick rain or sustained rain so an extra 17m is crazy.

and all because some rocks on top of a hill showed evidence of water inundation 17 million years ago, when the local gorge didn't exist and it was a normal flat river.

 

[HalGameGuru]

the models are based on experiments and prediction from those experiments and if they were enough to convince 97% of climate scientists then it is enough for me

Except they aren't, once again, for there to be an "experiment" about the environment, it needs to incorporate said environment, and be predictable and repeatable. There is no analog to the earth's environment. And the computer models have failed to accurately predict.

 

There has been much talk about how CO2 level seem to TRAIL temperature change rather than precede, and some theory has gone into new understanding of oceanic CO2 mechanisms. The ocean sequesters vast amounts of CO2 and as temperatures rise it causes the ocean to release dissolved CO2, to the tune of nature's overall CO2 budget being in the HUNDREDS of gigatons. But, this massive release FOLLOWS the temperature upswing. Causing some headaches for CO2 triggered warming, but also for out of control warming, as CO2 levels and temperatures have been far higher in earth's history but returning to equilibrium.

 

Seriously watch the videos, the one on desertification may well open your eyes to some oft ignored CO2 and "AGCC" mechanisms. A lot of the earth's habitable surface is desertifying and heating up, creating the trend of "warming" and CAN BE reversed. And the process of desertification and many of the presumed remedies for it are exacerbating the problem.

[spartaman64]

Except they aren't, once again, for there to be an "experiment" about the environment, it needs to incorporate said environment, and be predictable and repeatable. There is no analog to the earth's environment. And the computer models have failed to accurately predict.

 

There has been much talk about how CO2 level seem to TRAIL temperature change rather than precede, and some theory has gone into new understanding of oceanic CO2 mechanisms. The ocean sequesters vast amounts of CO2 and as temperatures rise it causes the ocean to release dissolved CO2, to the tune of nature's overall CO2 budget being in the HUNDREDS of gigatons. But, this massive release FOLLOWS the temperature upswing. Causing some headaches for CO2 triggered warming, but also for out of control warming, as CO2 levels and temperatures have been far higher in earth's history but returning to equilibrium.

 

Seriously watch the videos, the one on desertification may well open your eyes to some oft ignored CO2 and "AGCC" mechanisms. A lot of the earth's habitable surface is desertifying and heating up, creating the trend of "warming" and CAN BE reversed. And the process of desertification and many of the presumed remedies for it are exacerbating the problem.

whatever those videos bring up scientists have already thought of. scientists are not idiots you know if they believe that the earth is warming because of human activity they have good reasons to believe so

[HalGameGuru]

whatever those videos bring up scientists have already thought of. scientists are not idiots you know if they believe that the earth is warming because of human activity they have good reasons to believe so

If you refuse to watch the videos, or look at the papers, ESPECIALLY the desertification one, and to a lesser extent Wielicki, feel free to stop conversing. New info enters the equation all the time. And the 97% talking point has been dealt with multiple times. The reasoning behind that aggregation is spurious, it takes papers making no judgement or taking no stance on AGCC and lumping them in, and in the end consensus does not equal being right. 

 

The underlying question is not one of CO2 or our hand in any changes, but what effect we are actually going to see. That is entirely up in the air, and like I said earlier, there are mechanisms available to remedy ANY energy budget imbalance or thermal/CO2 imbalance and we have YET to do anything about it. And as long as there is money and government influence at stake it won't. This isn't an issue looking for a solution, its an issue feeding off of moneyed interests.

[spartaman64]

If you refuse to watch the videos, or look at the papers, ESPECIALLY the desertification one, and to a lesser extent Wielicki, feel free to stop conversing. New info enters the equation all the time. And the 97% talking point has been dealt with multiple times. The reasoning behind that aggregation is spurious, it takes papers making no judgement or taking no stance on AGCC and lumping them in, and in the end consensus does not equal being right. 

 

The underlying question is not one of CO2 or our hand in any changes, but what effect we are actually going to see. That is entirely up in the air, and like I said earlier, there are mechanisms available to remedy ANY energy budget imbalance or thermal/CO2 imbalance and we have YET to do anything about it. And as long as there is money and government influence at stake it won't. This isn't an issue looking for a solution, its an issue feeding off of moneyed interests.

i am not an expert on this subject so i am susceptible to false or misleading information so im not going to look at the videos or papers and let the experts handle it. and we are seeing the effects. people are worried that the ground water that california relies on for fresh water is going to be contaminated by salt water and we can see sea levels raise. animals are going extinct at massive rates. also if you look at the people saying its all fake corrupt senators and fox news i would trust scientists much more than i trust those people. look at where the money is. its with the oil companies and look where the influence on government is. it is the oil companies that are top donors to government officials. this happened before with tobacco companies saying it doesn't cause lung disease and cancer and pesticide companies claiming their pesticides are 100% safe even though they are proven by science to be harmful.

 

bottom line is scientists are not idiots they have already thought of and considered the counter points you climate change deniers bring up

[stconquest]

Governments are warned about the potential effects of "man-made" carbon introduction to our atmosphere:  "everything is fine".

 

Governments are pointed towards indications of climate change relating to man-made emissions:  "everything is fine".

 

Governments are told the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached levels that are currently warming the earth and are irreversible in the short term:  "everything is fine".

 

Supreme idiots around the world:  "everything is fine".

 

Supreme idiots with science backgrounds:  "the other guys are wrong".

 

FYI, Supreme idiots are those with an extra level of idiocy (above the median) that even university degrees can't fix.

[HalGameGuru]

i am not an expert on this subject so i am susceptible to false or misleading information so im not going to look at the videos or papers and let the experts handle it. and we are seeing the effects. people are worried that the ground water that california relies on for fresh water is going to be contaminated by salt water and we can see sea levels raise. animals are going extinct at massive rates. also if you look at the people saying its all fake corrupt senators and fox news i would trust scientists much more than i trust those people. look at where the money is. its with the oil companies and look where the influence on government is. it is the oil companies that are top donors to government officials. this happened before with tobacco companies saying it doesn't cause lung disease and cancer and pesticide companies claiming their pesticides are 100% safe even though they are proven by science to be harmful.

 

bottom line is scientists are not idiots they have already thought of and considered the counter points you climate change deniers bring up

Then why are you debating? If you are not going to ingest information you have no place in a discussion. You are merely regurgitating, you have no interest in back and forth or discourse.

 

If oil money can corrupt science so too can government money.

 

California's water issues stem from decades of malfeasance. In the end they will have to adapt or invest in desalinization.

 

If you are not going to watch the desertification video I bid you adieu, any reply you make to me without having watched it I will merely ignore and reiterate "Watch the video"

 

There is no settled science, merely settled scientists, and one thing history has shown is that settled scientists are rarely ever right in the long term.

[HalGameGuru]

Governments are warned about the potential effects of "man-made" carbon introduction to our atmosphere:  "everything is fine".

 

Governments are pointed towards indications of climate change relating to man-made emissions:  "everything is fine".

 

Governments are told the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached levels that are currently warming the earth and are irreversible in the short term:  "everything is fine".

 

Supreme idiots around the world:  "everything is fine".

 

Supreme idiots with science backgrounds:  "the other guys are wrong".

 

FYI, Supreme idiots are those with an extra level of idiocy (above the median) that even university degrees can't fix.

It's been proven any degree is within the grasp of anyone with middling intelligence or better. Almost every politician in america has at least one degree...

[spartaman64]

Then why are you debating? If you are not going to ingest information you have no place in a discussion. You are merely regurgitating, you have no interest in back and forth or discourse.

 

If oil money can corrupt science so too can government money.

 

California's water issues stem from decades of malfeasance. In the end they will have to adapt or invest in desalinization.

 

If you are not going to watch the desertification video I bid you adieu, any reply you make to me without having watched it I will merely ignore and reiterate "Watch the video"

 

There is no settled science, merely settled scientists, and one thing history has shown is that settled scientists are rarely ever right in the long term.

and you think scientists havent considered what you are bringing up. and it doesnt matter how well california manage their water if sea water contaminates it then a large supply of their water is gone. and you are saying you are right and scientists who spend their lives studying this is wrong. thats like me saying that tectonic plate movement isnt real and everything is where it is because of a single giant earthquake. who is more likely to be correct me or the scientists? i read the description of the video and i dont see anything that says they are saying climate change isnt real. they just say we are accelerating it further by destroying plants which supports that co2 affects the environment. also we have a full model of what a planet with a high co2 density will be like and its called venus

[Psykomantis00]

whatever those videos bring up scientists have already thought of. scientists are not idiots you know if they believe that the earth is warming because of human activity they have good reasons to believe so

 

Aw that's cute. You think all scientists are in lab coats looking at beakers of fluid. There are a lot of "scientists" that are shills for corporations that want a scientific study to come out to make said company look favorable. There were scientific research companies in the 50's that said smoking was good for you. 

 

A scientist, in a broad sense, is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

 

Anyone using scientific methods can be considered a scientist. Not all scientists are smart. 

[Dabombinable]

Aw that's cute. You think all scientists are in lab coats looking at beakers of fluid. There are a lot of "scientists" that are shills for corporations that want a scientific study to come out to make said company look favorable. There were scientific research companies in the 50's that said smoking was good for you. 

 

A scientist, in a broad sense, is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

 

Anyone using scientific methods can be considered a scientist. Not all scientists are smart. 

Or honest. Who funds Scientists is always a problem.

[Psykomantis00]

Or honest. Who funds Scientists is always a problem.

 

Scientists need money though, so I get it. Maybe we shouldn't put a whole lot of weight behind a study that says Chocolate milk is good for you and makes your heart healthy if the funding was given by Nestle. They should have to be more clear about where the money comes from. 

[spartaman64]

Aw that's cute. You think all scientists are in lab coats looking at beakers of fluid. There are a lot of "scientists" that are shills for corporations that want a scientific study to come out to make said company look favorable. There were scientific research companies in the 50's that said smoking was good for you. 

 

A scientist, in a broad sense, is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

 

Anyone using scientific methods can be considered a scientist. Not all scientists are smart. 

sure there are some like that but if you want to get money you dont become a scientist. if most scientists are corporate shills then nothing would have been done against tobacco companies and they will be saying climate change isnt real because oil companies will be paying them off and yes you need to be pretty smart to earn a masters or Ph.D 

[vorticalbox]

What do you propose we use during the night when there is no wind, hydroelectric can't be implemented everywhere

Wind just turns off at night does it? lol

[spartaman64]

Or honest. Who funds Scientists is always a problem.

so you guys dont trust scientists because it is their profession not their hobby ok 

[Psykomantis00]

so you guys dont trust scientists because it is their profession not their hobby ok 

 

Nobody said that at all. I'm just saying maybe don't believe everything that comes out from a "scientist". 

[Dabombinable]

Scientists need money though, so I get it. Maybe we shouldn't put a whole lot of weight behind a study that says Chocolate milk is good for you and makes your heart healthy if the funding was given by Nestle. They should have to be more clear about where the money comes from. 

Its the same for Gatorade as well - that's an example of

 

so you guys dont trust scientists because it is their profession not their hobby ok 

Are you being an idiot? Its a well known fact that the source of a scientists funding can greatly change the results. Eg. The scientists Gatorade use.

[spartaman64]

Nobody said that at all. I'm just saying maybe don't believe everything that comes out from a "scientist". 

if scientist are corporate shills they will be with the climate change deniers and you just said you dont trust them because they get paid making it their profession so you will trust them if they do it as a hobby

[spartaman64]

Its the same for Gatorade as well - that's an example of

 

Are you being an idiot? Its a well known fact that the source of a scientists funding can greatly change the results. Eg. The scientists Gatorade use.

where do you get the fact that 97% of climate scientists are working for corporations and i agree with that statement because lots of scientist who say climate change isnt real are working for oil companies

[Dabombinable]

where do you get the fact that 97% of climate scientists are working for corporations and i agree with that statement because lots of scientist who say climate change isnt real are working for oil companies

And there are scientists with climate change that are getting paid by the governments who want more taxes.

[AresKrieger]

Wind just turns off at night does it? lol

During the night if there's no wind, btw wind is one of the least efficient power sources, the space requirements are immense while the power output is miniscule, the point is that power storage options are horribly inefficient so using variable power sources as the backbone of the grid is pointless until power storage is efficient. 

[CoffeeBlack]

But those are our Shameful North Californian Brethren! Only submerge Northerners, Southern CA is the greatest.

Southern California is my least favorite place I've been. I've been to 37 states and would choose any other over California, especially the southern half.