41

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: May 02, 2014, 02:05:17 AM »

Erm, no. Its nothing like what happened 8300 years ago. do you know how to read a graph?

The tiny red bit on the far right is the bit you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It was 2 degrees warmer than it is now when the Romans wandered about. Animals didn't die, humans weren't made extinct, the ozone didn't fry anyone and the fish didn't all float to the top of the ocean.

But hey, if you want to pay someone tax because of that little red bit at the end, be my guest. Just don't expect me to.

You don't seem to understand that this graph does NOT represent the average world temperatures of the past 100 years. This represents the temperatures of the LOCAL area. Local temperatures will have much more severe variations than the global average, as averages are often less volatile. When you start seeing global changes in average temperatures appear like variations in local areas, you know that there is a serious issue. Here Graph compiling 12 different records from 12 different areas on the planet into a single graph (and hence, an average).




NOTE how individual records vary much more than the average.
NOTE how individual records will OFTEN be warmer than current temperatures.
NOTE how the current temperature is significantly higher than it was at any point in the past 10,000 years.
And please, NOTE the difference between individual data in individual areas, and the averages of all of these data points, and how large changes in individual trends has a significantly different meaning than large changes in the average trends.

42

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: April 30, 2014, 07:09:02 PM »

Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.

Then why did you present a graph with a significantly shorter timespan?

The temperature records on the graph I showed are about 10 years longer. I'd prefer a longer time span, but the animation is good for this point.

43

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: April 30, 2014, 04:38:08 AM »

Oh boy, global warming.

Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.

44

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: April 14, 2014, 02:14:37 AM »

The logic is precisely the same whether we're talking about coins or climates.

Tweak the analogy.  Imagine that Alice and Bob use a random number generator instead of a coin.  Let's say it generates a random decimal number between 0 and 1.  There are infinite end states, and they're completely unpredictable from the initial conditions.  If Alice cheats and tweaks the number generator to generate her numbers 90% of the time, Bob can detect that the generator is biased, analytically, by recording the proportions of the end states and comparing that to the likelihood of those proportions being truly random.  Bob can then quantify exactly how certain or uncertain he is that the number generator is biased.

Or go with the original.  The final position of a coin spinning through air is chaotic (or at least approximately so).  I can still use probability and statistics to detect an unfair coin by recording and analyzing the proportions of its outcomes.  There are many more possible 'outcomes' for a climate than for a coin, but I can still record and analyze their proportions.

The motion of a pinball in a pinball machine is chaotic.  One could still detect a tilted machine by recording and analyzing a sufficient number of end states of the pinball.

How do you know how a pinball machine is supposed to work?

All of that said, I'm not sure why you think the climate is a chaotic system.  That's definitely not a given.  Weather is chaotic, but that doesn't necessitate that averages of those systems are.  See 'attractors' for more on that regard.  But you know all about chaos theory, so I don't have to tell you that.

From where I sit, climate is very predictable.  It's so predictable that I could buy a plot of land grow the same kind of plant in it every single year for the rest of my life.  Year in and year out I could reasonably predict how hot/cold it will be, when, and with how much variation.  Lots of people have been doing this very thing for...well, years now I think.

Weather is easily predicted, climate is not.

On the contrary, it's easier in most cases to predict climate rather than weather.

45

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: April 13, 2014, 01:23:42 AM »

Sorry, but the Earth isn't the population.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis Effect

« on: April 06, 2014, 06:46:03 PM »

Well first, the Coriolis effect is well documented, and is commonly used to predict accurate weather conditions in the future. We can see the effects of the coriolis effect across innumerable atmospheric systems, from small systems, such as tornadoes and mesocyclones, large systems, such as Hurricanes and Anti-cycles, and large system, such as the Hadley Cell and the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Any model would have to account for a change in lateral speed with a change in longitudinal position.

On a related note, the Eotvos effect cause a decrease in weight when increasing one's speed towards the east, and an increase in weight when accelerating westwards. This is accounted for in a RE by the rotation of the earth, and the change in weight corresponds to the speed that the earth rotates at.

So how exactly would this be accounted for in said models?

47

Flat Earth Theory / Coriolis Effect

« on: April 03, 2014, 08:08:58 PM »

What if the FE explanation for the Coriolis effect? Note that both global air "currents" and smaller systems such as cyclones reflect the Coriolis effect.

*And yes, I looked at the wiki. Though it doesn't exactly go into great detail*

48

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 31, 2014, 08:38:25 PM »

Yes, HHunter. You extrapolated a tiny section of earth's climate as though 100 years completely explains everything about climate and any upsurge must mean the sky is falling in.  Below is the last 10,000 years. The little red bit is the bit you quoted. Imagine if we lived 8300 years ago. You'd be screaming "Look what we are doing to the planet! ". Climate changes. Sometimes rapidly and certainly way faster that it is at present. All the animals didn't die out in the last 10,000 years. The trend for temperatures is actually down. If it was getting cooler, we really would have stuff to worry about. It's a relief temperatures are not plunging us further towards another ice-age. Slightly warmer, more hurricanes. But it hasn't got anything to do with me driving my car to work in the morning. Environmental taxes are the new religious taxes. They are trying to get you to believe in something you can't disprove and you are derided as an idiot if you disagree. Only an idiot would swallow such crap. If it costs money, the likelihood is someone has an agenda. Welcome to the climate change industry.

I like how you criticize for using a "tiny" section of the earth's climate, while utilizing a graph that represents the climate of a small area, pretty much greenland and that's it, and pretending as if this represents the climate of the whole planet for that period of time. Climates of local areas often will fluctuate much more wildly than the average of the entire Earth.

What stuck out for me was how warm the Medieval warming period appears on the graph, when it's been shown plenty of times that it's in fact cooler than it is now. The current trend is easily the fastest warming we've had in the past 1000 years.

Needless to say, besides that it's laughable to consider that graph a representation of the past 10000 years, the time intervals, as Tausami said, are not uniform, and are misleading, which would compound the issue.

Back on the topic of Hurricanes, I think after another 50 years, or another ENSO cycle or two, we'll have a much clearer picture on the effects of AGW on major hurricanes, as I can't say with complete confidence that this is a rising trend. It's very likely nevertheless, that this is an upwards trend, and that this is due to higher ocean temperatures.

Here's a graph to show why recent warming is considered unprecedented:



On how taxes can help the environment (this is the kind of legislation I'd like to see expansion of), see the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

49

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 29, 2014, 06:57:59 PM »

I just compiled all hurricanes rated at cat 4 and 5 over the past 100 years by decade. The graph shows an increase in the amount of major hurricanes over the years. This would fit into the predictions and models showing an increase in major hurricanes due to warmer waters. Global warming would also allow hurricanes to survive farther in the north, making sandy-like events more likely. Hurricanes that seem to defy the laws of physics such as Katrina will become more common, as likeliness of super-heated waters will be more prevalent.



This demonstrates one of the many additional monetary costs imposed by unchecked global warming. Additional annual costs due to increased numbers of major hurricanes in the Atlantic basin ranges in the billions (assuming that the coast remains at the same level of development) and this does not include costs from increased Cyclones in areas such as the Pacific and Indian oceans.

*note that this is not evidence for AGW, simply a demonstration of increased costs and damages due to Global Warming*

50

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 26, 2014, 07:25:15 PM »

Sorry, I didn't elaborate on that enough. I was curious if anyone was aware of any significant academic circles that dispute anthropogenic global warming, as i'm not aware of the existence of any that dispute it. The AAAS and the AMS, I was using them as example of significant academic circles, however, not as example of significant academic circles that dispute AGW. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

There aren't any. Several years ago a conservative group made a list of scientists who disputed global warming, and they had to make up names and add random people to complete the list. Charles Darwin was on there. I'd imagine that if there were serious scientific groups disputing it they wouldn't have had to resort to such idiocy.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. 

51

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 26, 2014, 04:12:41 PM »

Sorry, I didn't elaborate on that enough. I was curious if anyone was aware of any significant academic circles that dispute anthropogenic global warming, as i'm not aware of the existence of any that dispute it. The AAAS and the AMS, I was using them as example of significant academic circles, however, not as example of significant academic circles that dispute AGW. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

52

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 26, 2014, 07:20:40 AM »

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any significant academic circles that broadly cover the sciences (the AAAS) or specifically atmospheric science circles (like the AMS) that dispute that humans are the driving cause of global warming?

General or atmospheric science because i'm sure there are plenty of geologists who dispute the issue.

53

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 25, 2014, 03:42:07 AM »

Not like this. Basically, as the oceans get more acidic there's less calcium for calcareous plankton (which is what I meant when I said algae, which was wrong) to make shells with. We've been able to measure the decrease in shell growth, and we've been able to measure its effect on fish populations. This isn't something they can just evolve around in a few decades, and the siliceous plankton probably won't be able to rise to fill the gap they leave if they disappear. We're probably screwed.

I'm not overly worried. A reasonable assumption of convergent evolution would demand something will take their niche rather quickly, as they use a most basic resource to survive (sunlight), something else will thrive using that resource. Since that something else will inevitably use photosynthesis, the overall impact will be the same, even if the new plankton do not produce shells.

In general, acidification of the ocean has a much larger effect than the disappearance of a single species. Most organisms are adapted to survive in certain pH ranges, and when you mess with that too much, it causes massive ecosystem disruptions. If one removes the producers for even a short amount of time, it would cause extinctions on a mass scale, and genetic bottlenecks occurring on a grand scale. Even though I wouldn't suspect too much from our perspective, we're currently experiencing one of the largest mass extinctions in history. Since the beginning of the athropocene, extinction rates have been on the rise, as human influences annihilate many of the world's species.

54

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 24, 2014, 03:55:05 AM »

Do you understand what negative externalities are?

55

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 24, 2014, 01:57:39 AM »

It is making you pay for negative externalities, which should be in place in many more places. If you don't like paying the real cost of a product, then don't buy it. Don't complain about something not costing $1.00 when it costs $2.00.

That's a lot of words just to tell someone you've never taken an economics class.

Or a few to demonstrate you've never taken a course in the environmental sciences.

56

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 23, 2014, 11:45:55 PM »

In the United States, over the past 10 years, the production of renewable electricity with non-hydroelectrical techniques has increased by over 150%, giving it the highest rate of increase by percentage in the USA. Currently, renewable energy currently constitutes about 6.25% of the United States' current electricity production, as opposed to the 2% in 2004. This easily demonstrates the results of recent efforts to use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.

That is a result of recent subsidy programs in place, whereas you're suggesting atrocious tax hikes which do literally nothing to help.

It is making you pay for negative externalities, which should be in place in many more places. If you don't like paying the real cost of a product, then don't buy it. Don't complain about something not costing $1.00 when it costs $2.00.

57

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 23, 2014, 05:24:40 AM »

In the United States, over the past 10 years, the production of renewable electricity with non-hydroelectrical techniques has increased by over 150%, giving it the highest rate of increase by percentage in the USA. Currently, renewable energy currently constitutes about 6.25% of the United States' current electricity production, as opposed to the 2% in 2004. This easily demonstrates the results of recent efforts to use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.

58

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 22, 2014, 02:45:21 PM »

If you'd like to see the negative health effects of CO2, try breathing out of your cars exhaust (don't actually do this). (Granted this is not a great example since you'd basically be depriving yourself of oxygen. However, increased CO2 in the body can lead to more acidic pH levels in the body, which is hazardous.)

What on earth are you going on about? This is the stupidest argument I have read yet. You aren't going to die from anthropogenic CO2 poisoning.

Agggghhhhh! This teacher is trying to murder the children! CO2 near their precious little nostrils! OMG! 
Should Broadway be sued for polluting with its dry ice shows?

More carbon in the atmosphere would actually promote plant growth. They pump CO2 into greenhouses.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/co2-capture-tomatoes-120821.htm
This would promote the growth of forests and crops around the world helping to cleanse the atmosphere of toxins and increasing global food production. CO2 would actually help.

Should this guy be suing his employers for acid blood levels? He's not even wearing a respirator! Where are the health and safety people?

Nitrogen oxide is naturally produced by forests and oceans. We could just cut down the trees and poison the algae if you like?

Carbon monoxide is also naturally occurring. The kind of levels cars kick out have no effects on us at all provided you don't hotbox your car. That is due to how readily it binds with haemoglobin and hence prevents oxygen being transported in your blood. But all the oil in the air wouldn't get close to this being a problem for us. A few parts per million would have no effect whatsoever.

Why are you telling me that the most harmless gases on earth are going to kill us all? Too much oxygen would kill you. Too much water. Too much of anything. But we aren't going to get anywhere near those kind of levels from 'pollution'.

According to the CDC, being in areas with heavy vehicle use can lead to the following symptoms due to Nitrogen Dioxide exposure:

From acute exposure

Infection
Discoloration of the skin
Hemoptysis
Rapid breathing
Difficult Breathing
Chills
Fever
Headache
Nausea
Vomiting
Unconsciousness
Bronchial Irritation
Collapse and death from respiratory failure

Chronic Exposure

Pulmonary Dysfunction
Low arterial oxygen saturation
Dyspnea
Moist rales and Wheezes
Sporadic cough expelling mucus and pus

Though granted CO2 and CO are probably unlikely to harm you unless you are in a closed system. (This is all assuming that CO2 won't indirectly harm humans, which I am not arguing)

59

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 22, 2014, 01:43:50 AM »

It's more of a fee for polluting the atmosphere with your CO2. The atmosphere is public space. If you don't want to pay a tax, design a mechanism to capture all the CO2 you release, and store it in a warehouse.
If I went and started dumping waste from a septic tank on a public park, then i'd get fined, and probably some more severe penalties.

Who gets that fee for polluting the atmosphere? Why should they have it? What do they do with the trillions of dollars? Surely they should be inventing a CO2 capturing machine with all that money? But they don't.

Dumping septic waste is demonstrably hazardous to other people's health. CO2 in the air is not. I breath out CO2. Should I pay for breathing?

The CO2 you breath out is being liberated due to cellular respiration, and that liberated CO2 is equivalent to the amount of CO2 that was sequestered by the plants that eventually provided you energy. Therefore the short-term (lets say 100 years) output is 0. The net output
If you'd like to see the negative health effects of CO2, try breathing out of your cars exhaust (don't actually do this). (Granted this is not a great example since you'd basically be depriving yourself of oxygen. However, increased CO2 in the body can lead to more acidic pH levels in the body, which is hazardous.)

Combustion engines will also produce carbon monoxide, which is poisonous to humans(and many other things).

Combustion engines will also produce nitrogen oxides, which will be created from the reaction of oxygen radicals produced from the combustion engine with nitrogen in the air, which has been shown to cause increased illness, and can lead to premature death from disorders of the lungs and the heart.

Nitrogen oxides are also fundamental in the production of acid rain, which is fundamental in the creation of acid rain and the acidification of the surrounding environment, which can kill off local animals due to pH intolerances.

60

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: March 22, 2014, 12:44:02 AM »

Why did you quote my post and then repeat the same thing back to me?

House insurance is the one thing people cannot afford to gamble with. If I owned 100 houses or had millions to spare in the bank, I wouldn't buy it. Its purely because I couldn't cover the losses.

Back to the environment and away from your stinking red herring. When you buy insurance, the insurance company guarantees to cover your losses. Environmental tax doesn't. They are just collecting money 'just in case' without any promise to help if 'just in case' actually happens.

It's more of a fee for polluting the atmosphere with your CO2. The atmosphere is public space. If you don't want to pay a tax, design a mechanism to capture all the CO2 you release, and store it in a warehouse.
If I went and started dumping waste from a septic tank on a public park, then i'd get fined, and probably some more severe penalties.