Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #200 on: May 09, 2014, 04:11:53 AM »
Quote
I'll try to put it in complex terms, then simple terms so you understand:
Humans produce heat.  Almost every bit of energy we use produces heat.  From power plants like coal which heat the air to nuclear plants near rivers which heat the surrounding water.  From air conditioners to cars.  We create heat.  Most of the time this heat simply dissipates into the atmosphere.  However with a dense enough location (like a city) the heat can build up faster than it dissipates.  This can result in the city having a slightly higher temperature on average than the surrounding area.  New York city is a good example of this.
However, the heat is insignificant compared to the total thermal energy from the sun hitting the surface.  Therefore, while locally it can cause a noticable impact, globally it's insignificant.

Simply put:
"The energy from the humans hasn't increased significant"

So what does this have to do with anthropogenic global warming?

Quote
1. > means "greater than"
http://www.mathsisfun.com/equal-less-greater.html
2. they wrote :
Quote
Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity,we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is %5Cleq14%of the observed global warming.
Sadly the >with a tilda under is not supported nor can I find any mention of it.  My guess is that the author meant "less than or almost equal to" as the ~ usually means "approximately".

Now, do you see the difference between what they wrote and what you wrote?

First of all, thanks for pointing out a typo. Secondly:

Please read the the conclusion of the paper.
"[The] effect of varying solar activity, either by direct solar irradiance or by varying
cosmic ray rates, must be less than 0.07◦C since 1956 i.e. less than 14% of the observed global
warming."

What I said: "less than 14%"
What the paper says: "less than 14%"

What difference?

Quote
I have no desire to crawl through this thread.  I am simply stating an observation based on what I've read so far.

Not only have I never stated that anthropogenic forcings are the only forces that change the climate, i've actively discussed specific how several different factors of the Earth's orientation and movement can cause changes in the climate. Here's a quote:
Quote
There are mainly three different Earth-centered reasons for climate change, involving the Earth and it's position and orbit in space. These is eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Increasing eccentricity (how elliptical the orbit is) will result in more extreme seasons. Obliquity is the tilt of the earth's axis. Our current obliquity is 23.4 degrees. Obliquity determines how extreme (or not extreme) the seasons will be. Precession is the direction of the tilt, and doesn't have much of an effect on climate. All three of these occur over long periods of time, and therefore cannot be credited with recent warming.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5182
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #201 on: May 11, 2014, 01:49:54 AM »
Quote
I'll try to put it in complex terms, then simple terms so you understand:
Humans produce heat.  Almost every bit of energy we use produces heat.  From power plants like coal which heat the air to nuclear plants near rivers which heat the surrounding water.  From air conditioners to cars.  We create heat.  Most of the time this heat simply dissipates into the atmosphere.  However with a dense enough location (like a city) the heat can build up faster than it dissipates.  This can result in the city having a slightly higher temperature on average than the surrounding area.  New York city is a good example of this.
However, the heat is insignificant compared to the total thermal energy from the sun hitting the surface.  Therefore, while locally it can cause a noticable impact, globally it's insignificant.

Simply put:
"The energy from the humans hasn't increased significant"

So what does this have to do with anthropogenic global warming?
I'm telling you that humans aren't causing global warming by creating heat.  Something you agree with.


Quote
Quote
1. > means "greater than"
http://www.mathsisfun.com/equal-less-greater.html
2. they wrote :
Quote
Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity,we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is %5Cleq14%of the observed global warming.
Sadly the >with a tilda under is not supported nor can I find any mention of it.  My guess is that the author meant "less than or almost equal to" as the ~ usually means "approximately".

Now, do you see the difference between what they wrote and what you wrote?

First of all, thanks for pointing out a typo. Secondly:

Please read the the conclusion of the paper.
"[The] effect of varying solar activity, either by direct solar irradiance or by varying
cosmic ray rates, must be less than 0.07◦C since 1956 i.e. less than 14% of the observed global
warming."

What I said: "less than 14%"
What the paper says: "less than 14%"

What difference?

You said
Quote
The key word in that statement is maximum, which means that the actual value is likely well below this number.
But based on the inequality written it's likely somewhere above 13% but below 14%.  And they never seem to indicate that it's significantly lower than 14% (otherwise why put 14%?)

Quote
Quote
I have no desire to crawl through this thread.  I am simply stating an observation based on what I've read so far.

Not only have I never stated that anthropogenic forcings are the only forces that change the climate, i've actively discussed specific how several different factors of the Earth's orientation and movement can cause changes in the climate. Here's a quote:
Quote
There are mainly three different Earth-centered reasons for climate change, involving the Earth and it's position and orbit in space. These is eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Increasing eccentricity (how elliptical the orbit is) will result in more extreme seasons. Obliquity is the tilt of the earth's axis. Our current obliquity is 23.4 degrees. Obliquity determines how extreme (or not extreme) the seasons will be. Precession is the direction of the tilt, and doesn't have much of an effect on climate. All three of these occur over long periods of time, and therefore cannot be credited with recent warming.
Oh I didn't know the Earth's orbit was altering or that it's tilt was altering.  I mean, we have a wobble but that's predictable and it's not like it takes decades to occur.  At most it wobbles every 7 years. 
And if the Earth's orbit is altering, then it's not stable.  And if it's not stable, it shouldn't have been stable for a long time as nothing large enough to alter our orbit has crossed close enough to us.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #202 on: May 11, 2014, 03:17:36 AM »
Quote
I'm telling you that humans aren't causing global warming by creating heat.  Something you agree with.

Well yes, my point is that no one will disagree with this, so why is it worth mentioning?

Quote
You said
Quote
The key word in that statement is maximum, which means that the actual value is likely well below this number.
But based on the inequality written it's likely somewhere above 13% but below 14%.  And they never seem to indicate that it's significantly lower than 14% (otherwise why put 14%?)

Hmm, I went through the data given in the article. While they never state in the article that it's likely close to 14%, after looking at the data given, it would seem to support it. From what I could ascertain, assuming that the relationship between Solar Irradiance is linear, or somewhere around 12.6%. The tilda was likely added in on the abstract since it wasn't mentioned in the conclusion.

Quote
Oh I didn't know the Earth's orbit was altering or that it's tilt was altering.  I mean, we have a wobble but that's predictable and it's not like it takes decades to occur.  At most it wobbles every 7 years. 
And if the Earth's orbit is altering, then it's not stable.  And if it's not stable, it shouldn't have been stable for a long time as nothing large enough to alter our orbit has crossed close enough to us.

I'm not aware of a 7-year wobble, but I do know that the full cycles for both precession and obliquity takes tens of thousands of years. On the orbit:

I'm not learned enough on orbital mechanics to provide a logical explanation. All I know is that the Earth has cycles of becoming more elliptical and eccentric, then becoming more circular and round. The the the perigee and the apogee might actually shift over time as well, but i can't be too sure about that.
 

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 1977
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #203 on: May 12, 2014, 09:47:56 PM »
Rather than tax fuel, governments should concentrate more on subsidizing the research and development, as well as implementation of alternative energy vehicles. While this certainly isn't the best method of getting things done, it is a lot better than taxes, which, even if they are on the company as you suggested, get pushed to the consumer regardless.

Enter: ExxonMobil, Halliburton, and Super PACs.
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." -Henry David Thoreau

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #204 on: May 17, 2014, 07:21:32 AM »
#t=255

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

I thought that was interesting. It looks like the scientific community think climate change is related to human activities.

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 1977
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #205 on: May 17, 2014, 07:12:42 PM »
It looks like the scientific community think climate change is related to human activities.

It probably is, if even just a little bit. But so what? Instead of bitching to everyone about it, they can get their asses in the lab and fix it. In the meantime, all of us regular people can just be more aware of, and try to limit the amount of energy we consume.
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." -Henry David Thoreau

Ghost of V

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #206 on: May 17, 2014, 07:31:22 PM »
The celestial gears of our universe have been thwarted by hairspray and cow farts.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #207 on: May 17, 2014, 07:40:39 PM »
It looks like the scientific community think climate change is related to human activities.

It probably is, if even just a little bit. But so what? Instead of bitching to everyone about it, they can get their asses in the lab and fix it. In the meantime, all of us regular people can just be more aware of, and try to limit the amount of energy we consume.

They're trying.

In the mean time I think it's wise to try and limit the damage.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #208 on: May 19, 2014, 10:12:27 PM »
It looks like the scientific community think climate change is related to human activities.

It probably is, if even just a little bit. But so what? Instead of bitching to everyone about it, they can get their asses in the lab and fix it. In the meantime, all of us regular people can just be more aware of, and try to limit the amount of energy we consume.

The technology to significantly reduce technology relatively cheaply is already in place. Public policy and prole-opinion are the main barriers to the implementation of this technology.

On "fixing" global warming, the only way to do that, other than limiting greenhouse gasses (which won't completely remove the effect), is really through geoengineering (both have their own issues). Geoengineering would include taking actions such as increasing aerosols in the air (which is usually bad for people) and extracting carbon from the air with the use of algae or something else that'll extract carbon (these can have their own obstacles and consequences.)

Though in terms of risk and cost, limiting the release of greenhouse gasses is generally best. We don't want to have another Stormfury.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5182
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #209 on: May 19, 2014, 10:41:11 PM »
It looks like the scientific community think climate change is related to human activities.

It probably is, if even just a little bit. But so what? Instead of bitching to everyone about it, they can get their asses in the lab and fix it. In the meantime, all of us regular people can just be more aware of, and try to limit the amount of energy we consume.

The technology to significantly reduce technology relatively cheaply is already in place. Public policy and prole-opinion are the main barriers to the implementation of this technology.

On "fixing" global warming, the only way to do that, other than limiting greenhouse gasses (which won't completely remove the effect), is really through geoengineering (both have their own issues). Geoengineering would include taking actions such as increasing aerosols in the air (which is usually bad for people) and extracting carbon from the air with the use of algae or something else that'll extract carbon (these can have their own obstacles and consequences.)

Though in terms of risk and cost, limiting the release of greenhouse gasses is generally best. We don't want to have another Stormfury.
Or we could kill all humans.  That would solve global warming.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #210 on: May 19, 2014, 11:08:01 PM »
Quote
Or we could kill all humans.  That would solve global warming.

Mass genocide is often considered the best solution to many environmental problems.

Too bad mass genocide is "immoral" and "evil."

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7110
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #211 on: May 19, 2014, 11:14:43 PM »
That is why I am actively trying to create evolutionary programs that will eventually create sophisticated AI, which can then save humanity from itself by killing all humans.

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #212 on: May 22, 2014, 01:46:33 PM »
Quote
Or we could kill all humans.  That would solve global warming.

Mass genocide is often considered the best solution to many environmental problems.

Too bad mass genocide is "immoral" and "evil."

By what standard? A massive cull in he population will only result in a baby boom to replace them. The best ways to reduce the human population are education, birth control, giving women rights over their bodies, and a basic standad of living.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #213 on: May 22, 2014, 07:02:18 PM »
Quote
Or we could kill all humans.  That would solve global warming.

Mass genocide is often considered the best solution to many environmental problems.

Too bad mass genocide is "immoral" and "evil."

By what standard? A massive cull in he population will only result in a baby boom to replace them. The best ways to reduce the human population are education, birth control, giving women rights over their bodies, and a basic standad of living.

Well really, the best way to solve it is kill all humans.

But most people don't like that, so we'll go down to killing only certain humans.

So let's kill everyone in the developing and undeveloped worlds. First world countries are going to have low birth rates regardless of the size of the country. Not all land would be utilized (you'd see an expansion of large mechanized farms in areas that were formerly subsistence farms, though this wouldn't expand too much since supply and demand would be easily balanced with so little people and so much land) and, while commodities would likely be more expensive since super-low-wage workers would be eliminated, and likely replaced to some extent with machinery.

Though this wouldn't really solve problems like CO2 output too much, since the USA is still a major creator of CO2, unless the US made major steps towards safer energy production. It would also probably make oil cheaper since you wouldn't have to worry about the dangers coming from the native people in the area where oil is being drilled, which could exacerbate climate change.

On reducing the world population, giving everyone a decent standard of living would be enough to curtail population growth. This includes the poor. It's why I always find the idea of a guaranteed income interesting, like what was suggested in Switzerland a good bit ago.

But back to Ghost Spaghetti, yeah, those are the best ways to reduce human population, it's too bad so many people are unwilling to allow this.

P.S. Don't criticize my economic "theory", i'm not a student of economics  :P

Ghost of V

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #214 on: May 23, 2014, 06:00:52 AM »
Unwilling to support human genocide? I wonder why...  ::)

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #215 on: June 11, 2014, 12:30:04 PM »
Quote
Well really, the best way to solve it is kill all humans.

Don't be absurd, the consequences of climate change are only really of a concern to the human population. If we wipe out 99.9% of life on Earth, then evolution will eventually repopulate the Earth with something, even if it's just blue-green algae again.

Quote
So let's kill everyone in the developing and undeveloped worlds

I know that you're not being serious, but, for one moment, let's assume you are. The West's high standards of living come, largely, through the work and exploitation of labour and materials in the developing world. A sudden cull of third world countries would lead to a severe resource shortage and reduce the developed world back to developing standards.

No man or country is an island, and we're all dependant on the vast human network for our standard of living. The answer to climate change isn't one big hurrah, but a million small and dull changes - decades of education, a gradual replacement of fossil fuel burners with renewables, more efficient technology, increased recycling of our waste, etc etc.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #216 on: June 11, 2014, 09:22:13 PM »
The West's high standards of living come, largely, through the work and exploitation of labour and materials in the developing world. A sudden cull of third world countries would lead to a severe resource shortage and reduce the developed world back to developing standards.
Myth. Standard of living in first world countries is down to industrialisation and science. It doesn't cost much to make a loaf of bread these days. Materials are cheap because of process farming and machines mix and prep the dough. Clothes used to take forever to make. Now machines weave cloth.

Just think about what you said for a second. How does a child labourer in Cambodia making Nike shoes for 6p and hour, raise my standard of living? Nike still sell me those shoes for £60.

The third world doesn't raise my standard of living one jot. It just allows multinationals to make $billions in profit. It only enriches the top 1%. But thanks for the blanket liberal guilt trip.


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #217 on: July 11, 2014, 06:50:48 AM »
Quote
Don't be absurd, the consequences of climate change are only really of a concern to the human population. If we wipe out 99.9% of life on Earth, then evolution will eventually repopulate the Earth with something, even if it's just blue-green algae again.

True, true. The world doesn't really give a crap whether or not we are living. It just sucks to be a non-human animal right now. Though the affects of anthropogenic climate change are very threatening to much of humanity. Economically, i'm more inclined to agree with Thork.

Unfortunately, the refusal to recognize the settled science in nations such as the United States is deeply troubling. It's amusing how many are more inclined to believe their friendly politicians rather those who have devoted their life and talents to studying the climate.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #218 on: February 08, 2015, 10:32:29 PM »
Some news has come out today re-affirming that I believe all global warming data interpretation to be manipulated these days and that it because they want environmental taxes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5182
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #219 on: February 08, 2015, 10:39:50 PM »
Some news has come out today re-affirming that I believe all global warming data interpretation to be manipulated these days and that it because they want environmental taxes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
I just have one questions:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?
« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 12:43:03 AM by Lord Dave »